Top 10 Worst US Presidents
- Published November 6, 2007 - 309 Comments
Here is a list to get the comments flowing! First of all, this list is not my personal opinion – it is compiled from the average score of each president over 12 surveys – taken between 1948 and 2005. Wikipedia has the complete historical rankings.
10. Calvin Coolidge 1923 – 1929
In 1919, three quarters of the Boston Police Force went on strike. Coolidge (then Governor of Massachusetts) had observed the situation throughout the conflict, but had not yet intervened. Furious that the mayor had called out state guard units, he finally acted. He called up more units of the National Guard, restored Police Commissioner Curtis to office, and took personal control of the police force. Curtis proclaimed that none of the strikers would be allowed back to their former jobs, and Coolidge issued calls for a new police force to be recruited. Many people criticized Coolidge as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government. His reputation underwent a renaissance during the Reagan administration, but the ultimate assessment of his presidency is still divided between those who approve of his reduction of the size of government and those who believe the federal government should be more involved in regulating the economy.
9. Richard Nixon 1969 – 1974
In June, 1972, several of Nixon’s men were caught breaking into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC – bringing to light the infamous Watergate Scandal. Nixon himself downplayed the scandal as mere politics, but when his aides resigned in disgrace, Nixon’s role in ordering an illegal cover-up came to light in the press, courts, and congressional investigations. Nixon owed back taxes, had accepted illicit campaign contributions, and had harassed opponents with executive agencies, wiretaps, and break-ins. In addition, he had ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. Unlike the tape recordings by earlier Presidents, his secret recordings of White House conversations were revealed and subpoenaed and showed details of his complicity in the cover-up. Nixon was named by the grand jury investigating Watergate as “an unindicted co-conspirator” in the Watergate scandal. In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his probable conviction by the Senate, he resigned on August 9, 1974, after addressing the nation on television the previous evening. He never admitted to criminal wrongdoing, although he later conceded errors of judgment.
8. Zachary Taylor 1849 – 1850
The slavery issue dominated Taylor’s short term. Although he owned slaves, he took a moderate stance on the territorial expansion of slavery, angering fellow Southerners. Taylor urged settlers in New Mexico and California to draft constitutions and apply for statehood, bypassing the territorial stage. New Mexico was too small to act but California — which had high population growth from the gold rush — wrote a constitution that did not allow slavery; the voters approved it and a new state government took over in December 1849 without Congressional approval. Southerners were furious with Taylor and with California. Taylor held a stormy conference with Southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the Army. Persons “taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang … with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico.”
7. John Tyler 1841 – 1845
Tyler’s Presidency was rarely taken seriously in his time. Opponents usually referred him to as the “Acting President” or “His Accidency”. Tyler shocked Congressional Whigs by vetoing virtually the entire Whig agenda, twice vetoing Clay’s legislation for a national banking act following the Panic of 1837 and leaving the government deadlocked. Tyler was officially expelled from the Whig Party in 1841, a few months after taking office, and became known as “the man without a party.” In 1843, after he vetoed a tariff bill, the House of Representatives considered the first impeachment resolution against a president in American history. A committee headed by former president John Quincy Adams concluded that Tyler had misused the veto, but the impeachment resolution did not pass.
6. Millard Fillmore 1850 – 1853
Fillmore ascended to the presidency upon the sudden and unexpected death of President Taylor in July 1850. The change in leadership also signaled an abrupt political shift in the administration, as Fillmore removed Taylor’s entire cabinet, replacing them with individuals known to be favorable to the Compromise efforts. Fillmore signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act as a compromise between Southern slaveholding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. The act sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.
5. Ulysses S Grant 1869 – 1877
Grant achieved international fame as the leading Union general in the American Civil War. The first scandal to taint the Grant administration was Black Friday, a gold-speculation financial crisis in September 1869, set up by Wall Street manipulators Jay Gould and James Fisk. They tried to corner the gold market and tricked Grant into preventing his treasury secretary from stopping the fraud. The most famous scandal was the Whiskey Ring of 1875, exposed by Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin H. Bristow, in which over 3 million dollars in taxes were stolen from the federal government with the aid of high government officials. Although Grant himself did not profit from corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a firm stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. Grant’s career is also marred by rumors of anti-Semitism due to his involvement with the infamous General Order Number 11.
4. Andrew Johnson 1865 – 1869
Johnson succeeding to the presidency upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Johnson vetoed the first civil rights bill, stating that it gave “a perfect equality of the white and black races in every State of the Union.” In a letter to the governor of Missouri he wrote: “this is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” The Republicans in congress overrode his veto (the Senate by the vote of 33:15, the House by 182:41) and the Civil Rights bill became law. Johnson tried to remove Edward Stanton as Secretary of War directly violating the Tenure of Office Act which Johnson had vetoed. He was impeached (and is the first president to be so) but found innocent by only one vote.
3. Franklin Pierce 1853 – 1857
Two months before assuming his place as President, Pierce watched his son die in a train accident. He took office nervously exhausted. The most controversial event of Pierce’s presidency was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and reopened the question of slavery in the West. The Act also caused widespread outrage in the North and spurred the creation of the Republican Party, a sectional Northern party that was organized as a direct response to the bill. Pierce is ranked among the least effective Presidents as well as an indecisive politician who was easily influenced. He was unable to command as President or to provide the required national leadership. Pierce is the only elected president (as of 2007) not to be renominated by his party for a second term.
2. James Buchanan 1857 – 1861
In his inaugural speech, Buchanan stated that the slavery issue was of “little practical importance” because the Supreme Court was about to settle it. Two days later they announced the Dred Scott decision in which it ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. Buchanan was widely believed to have been personally involved in the outcome of the case. Additionally, Buchanan’s administration was troubled by the Panic of 1857 – a sudden downturn in the US economy. Before Buchanan left office, seven slave states seceded, the Confederacy was formed, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter and two remote ones), and a fourth of all federal soldiers surrendered to Texas troops. Historians in 2006 voted his failure to deal with secession the worst presidential mistake ever made.
1. Warren G Harding 1921 – 1923
Harding’s term as president was beset with scandal – both personal and political. Albert B Fall, Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, became the first member of a presidential cabinet to go to jail for his role in the Teapot Dome affair. When Harding was elected, he raised many of his friends (known as the Ohio Gang) to prominent political positions. Some of these appointees used their power to rob the government. Harding is reputed to have said: “I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, my God-damned friends… they’re the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!”
Afterword
In the original list, William Harrison ranked 5th worst, but as his term was so short I do not think he can be fairly included. Additionally, James A Garfield ranked at number 9, but with the second shortest presidential term (6 months) I have also excluded him. As a result, Nixon, at number 11, moved in to 10th place, and Coolidge, at number 12, moves in at position 10.
As he is not on the list, I am sure you are all eager to know how the current President, George W Bush, fared. He ranked at number 21 worst, followed closely at 22nd worst by Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter ranked at 14th worst.























November 6th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Tricky Dick might be the most disgraced dude of the lot. I miss his sweaty upper lip and his 5 O’clock shadow that appeared 15 minutes after he shaved. I hold him responsible for the much of the last 30 some years of governmental mistrust and cynicism.
That said, I’ll take his shenannigans over that ass-clown lying escape artist Bubba Clinton. His picture is in the dictionary under ‘douchebag.’
November 6th, 2007 at 9:42 am
ooohhhhhhhhh boy, here we go again….lol
November 6th, 2007 at 9:42 am
bucslim: wow – does that mean you approve of this list?
November 6th, 2007 at 9:53 am
bucslim, to imply that Clinton was worse than Nixon is just…. well, it’s so over-the-top absurd as to be incapable of being taken as anything but a joke.
Aside: I guarantee that once he’s gone from office, we will find out just how terrible a president Dubya really was… we think we know now, but in time the damage he’s done will haunt us to the extent that he could conceivably advance to near the top of the class of miserable and awful failures.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Well, yeah.
I mean, you’re not from here but it looks like you did your homework. Liberal/Conservative politics will come into play, but these guys are dead, so why not piss on their graves?
Everybody’s going to have a beef with Bush and say he’s an idiot, but you’ve got to admit it’s been a pretty brutal time to be President, right?
My high school history teacher told me Grant and Harding had the most corrupt administrations ever. I think I heard that between naps.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Sorry randall, not gonna get into it. You won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours.
I didn’t say he was worse, I said I would take him over the biggest and horniest liar of the 20th century and his Nobel Peace Prize winning VP who invented the internet.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:02 am
An excellent list and with good details.
I’m a historian by schooling and nature, and I take the view that you can’t truly examine a presidency until 50 years after he’s out of office, and to truly see things may be closer to 100 years.
50 years gives time for people who didn’t live under it time to examine the facts without emotional bias. And it gives time for the results of events, actions, and inactions to show.
However much one may loathe Bush, or may have hated Reagan, or couldn’t stand Clinton, it is telling that so many on the list are there because of their actions as would relate to the civil war. As many may die in Iraq, the shattering of the US was far more bloody and the damage held for over a hundred years. (And some would argue, there is still repercussions).
Even now, historians are starting to look at FDR’s presidency with eyes that are fresh. Same with Kennedy. Who knows what how such a list will change in the future.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
You really like to stir up the hornet’s nest, don’t you?
I’m staying out of this one because I don’t feel like “debating” with ill-informed people of all types who will soon begin arguing whether Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is Satan incarnate, based solely on what they have heard on talk radio or read on anonymous internet blogs.
Having said that, I wonder what would really be the most accurate method of determining who was the best or worst president. While one would think that polling people who had lived through that presidency would be a reasonable method, I’m not sure that it really is. For one thing, I’ve noticed a tendency among some people to believe that their lives were much better or worse under a past president than they felt at that time, depending upon whether that president was of their party or not. Also, while a president might appear to be very good while they are in office, it might happen that as the years go by it emerges that they were up to all sorts of unpleasant secret activities with horrible repercussions for the future. I wonder if it even is possible to rate presidents fairly until years after they are out of office.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Mathilda: I completely agree, you said it all.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
bucslim: Thanks, a couple of my brain cells committed suicide after I read your comments.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Are we going to see at Top 10 Best US Presidents as well? This list was rather depressing…
November 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Kelsi: I will think about it
November 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I would have expected Nixon to be higher on the list. He undoubtedly created the biggest worldwide embarrassment the United States has ever seen. Unearthing the corruption in high-level government in the country that even at that stage saw it’s place as a police force for democracy created quite a strong opposition to the US, particularly in Central America.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Sarah – my musings have been compared to drinking a fine single malt scotch, sure it’s great, but a few brain cells have to be sacrificed.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
cant wait to read this comment thread, might be better then the list
November 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
i think this ones going to sputter out, we’ve already had 2 or 3 different threads going with bush bashing going on. I think both sides are probably tired of it.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I’m shocked that Grant and Bush aren’t there. A few months from now when the dollar is no longer worth the paper its printed on, methinks this list will be updated.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:05 am
guess not…lol
November 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
oops. I missed Grant there.
nevermind
November 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
bucslim:
I have no desire to argue about this either. I wasn’t the biggest fan of Clinton, and have no interest in defending him… but to call him the “biggest liar of the 20th century” is of course ridiculous hyperbole.
Mathilda: I’ll resist firing off at you for your backhanded comments, but I assure you I’m far from “ill informed” (in fact, I’m a fervent amateur historian and have quite the quality college education behind me, thank you) and I do not read online political blogs, nor do I listen to talk radio. I don’t believe either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is “Satan incarnate”–though I certainly believe that Bush will prove, with posterity’s eye on him, to be one of the worst presidents we’ve ever suffered under. Surely in the top 5, at least.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:11 am
bucslim The fact that you slipped in a phoney boorish partisan comment like “Al Gore inventing the Internet” demonstrates that your opinion on both politics and the Internet are pretty much worthless.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Sorry, but a list like this without Jimmy Carter? That is amazing. Even modern Democrats are embarassed by him. His citicisms in recent years of the US while on foreign soil is beyond the dignity of any former official. The Tahran hostage debacle and the botched rescue attempt; sale of the Panama Canal; devaluing of US gold Standard; and does anyone remember the misery index with double-digit inflation and 22% percent interest rates? Need I go on?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
As an English man reading this list i am bemused as to why the Retarded Twit you guys now call President is absent! Clinton Rocks bye the way!
Reagan was stupid, but at least he knew it…
Bush has the ordacity to think he’s smart! I now feel hypocritical as every Priminister sice Maggie has been a complete numpty also.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
John Baughn: with the two I removed due to short terms, Carter would rank 12 on this list (he is 14 on the original) – so he was very close to making it.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Carl: he isn’t on this one because I am saving him for the Top 10 Best US Presidents…
November 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Late – I wasn’t being phoney, boorish or partisan, I was quoting. If my opinion is so worthless, why are you posting something on it?
Randall – hyperbole aside, I’m still going to think what I think and we’ll still disagree. I didn’t call him the biggest liar of the 20th century, I called him the biggest, HORNIEST liar of the 20th century.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Notice how many of these guys are clustered right around the middle of the 19th century?
How depressing would that have been? I wonder what voter turnout was like in those years?
And the consumption of alcohol.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“Bush has the ordacity to think he’s smart!”
Irony levels: critical
November 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
JT: that reminds me of this -
http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-02/get-a-brain-morans.jpg
November 6th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Bucslim- LOL @ “That said, I’ll take his shenannigans over that ass-clown lying escape artist Bubba Clinton. His picture is in the dictionary under ‘douchebag.’” I actually like Bill Clinton a lot, but that was just funny.
I was VERY surprised that George W. wasn’t on the list. I was expecting him to be #1.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I love how that wikipedia list has broken down the rankings. Libertarians had FDR at 35 and Lincoln dead freaking last.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Round 10, FIGHT!
November 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
bucslim: you are not quoting, you are misquoting. Al Gore said he led the initiative to create the internet. Create and invent are two different things. What Al Gore was claiming credit for was his work in congress to get laws passed that funded the research that became what we now know as the internet as well as promoting the importance of the internet throughout his political career (so that in turn it could be used to spread the lie that he claims to have invented the internet). While no fan of Al Gore, George W. Bush, the democrats, the republicans, or anyone who aspires to high political office (if you want it, you probably shouldn’t get it) I am offended by people who can’t be bothered to get the facts right.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Andrew Jackson always seems to pop into my head. The whole Indian Removal Act made him seem like such a despicable person despite him being an effective president in other aspects.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
How in the H is Jimmy Carter not on here!!!! You know you did a crappy job when most people refer to you as “The Failed former President.” Although you have to give him an A+ on lobbying to get himself the Nobel Peace Price.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
GB2626: Carter made the top 10 most controversial nobel prize winners
November 6th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Daniel – sorry, I’m trying to get some work done and I keep hopping back and forth between this site and my job. I apologize for not getting it right.
“During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” – Al Gore
So there’s your quote.
Monkey – you sound like an intelligent person.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
First time commenter. I have to agree with GB2626. What sets Carter apart is that he had NO successes, and was regarded by the American public as a failure the day he left office. Since he left in disgrace, history has only confirmed his short-sightedness, lack of leadership, and deplorable gullibilty when dealing with tyrants and terrorists.
Old fashioned 19th century corruption may have been bad, but Jimmy Carter did more to push a superpower to the precipice of irrelevance than any tinhorn corruption monkey.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hi.
*Sits back-Shakes head with a sigh-sips coffee*
How’s it going in here?
November 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Pretty good Stew! This is all funny and stuff, but it’s nothing compared to what’s going on in the Beatles posts. Check it out, but be warned, it takes about a half hour to read.
Unless you throw up half way through.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
bucslim Someone who spouts a misconception can be forgiven as merely being ignorant on an issue, but your conscious and willful distortion just for the sake of scoring a phony debating point is especially pathetic. It’s the sort of lie a four-year-old doggedly resorts to when caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Maybe English is not your native language. The verb phrase is “took the initiative” … which is exactly what Gore did; he helped craft legislation, secured financing, and had an active hand in designing the infrastructure. (Or, do you think Eisenhower, who took the initiative in crafting the Interstate system was out there with a trawl laying asphalt?) Now, you can believe Rush Limbaugh or you can believe Vinton Cerf — the father of TCP/IP (who could certainly be called the father of the Internet), who has come down publicly on the side of Gore. But you won’t; we all know that cranks and trolls never give up their favorite squawking points just because facts get in the way.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
LOD-
Well that’s a democratic politician for you; support a bill, spend other people’s money, then crow about what “you” have accomplished.
Personally I was much more impressed that Al and Tipper were the inspiration fo “Love Story”.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Late – What happened to my opinon being worthless?
And you didn’t take your own advice and just move along.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Randall – Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult those people who are capable of rational, well-informed debate. I just meant that I feared that the calm sane voices would soon be drowned out by the screams of troll-like types of all persuasions. (BTW, I agree with your last comment but I would have felt that you sounded quite reasonable even without it.)
November 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
…disappointed to see the absence of bush on this list. we don’t need history to tell us how bad this man was…
November 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Thanks Mathilda… you’re truly a person of grace and reason.
bucslim: “unless you throw up halfway through”?! Are you saying my delicate prose and persuasive arguments are puke-making?
November 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Randall, just havin fun stirring the pot. I nearly toss when I read some of the stuff I write half the time.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Having been alive during the presidencies of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and so on… I can attest to the truth in regards to the depressing miasma of the Ford/Carter years. Odd that it’s probably been ages since we had such two very nice, decent, all-around good men in the White House, and that both of them left a stink of failure behind. Odd, that.
But I believe in the Peter Principle, firmly. Some people do rise to their level of incompetence. Richard Nixon did when he attained the White House. (George W. Bush did when he graduated Philips Academy, I imagine). Ford had the White House thrust upon him, so hardly fair to level it against him. But Jimmy Carter—there’s a man that (I have no memory or knowledge of his stewardship over Georgia, but assume he was a decent governor) apparently made a decent peanut farmer… he might have been a very good secretary of state or an ambassador, or a secretary of the interior… but president? No. He lacked the leadership skills to fill the job. But it could be argued that the country turned to him in desperation, wanting to get as far from the memory of Nixon as it could. This is how I recall the times, anyway.
I really view Ford and Carter as sad figures, really. They seemed like such nice men, but it seemed as though the Seventies were going to doom any man who entered the White House. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “tragic”… perhaps Nixon is “tragic”… one could make a good argument for that—a man brought down by his own failings and incapability of recognizing them… but there’s a sadness I feel when I remember Ford and Carter.
From Reagan on, the sadness turns into cynicism and disgust. (And I was a Young Republican in the day, a supporter of Ronald Reagan… how one changes in one’s life…)
November 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
And where the hell is the current president?
November 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Thank you for not including George Bush
November 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Randall;
Although your post is thoughtful and well written, I must take exception with several points. Nixon’s failings were not due to incompetence but to deeply seated character flaws. Feelings of inadequacy, unbridled suspicion, and raging paranoia. He is rightfully considered one of our most intellectually gifted presidents, was an excellent statesman, and a talented administrator. He allowed his psychological demons to prevail over his judgment resulting in criminal behavior.
Carter was most certainly incompetent, and on every level. The most dangerous of his failings was he almost precious naivete when crafting and implementing foriegn policy. Certainly his flaccid domestic leadership was commiserable, but on the international arena he actually endangered the country.
I like you was prone to feel a certain sadness for Carter initially, but his pathetic and stubborn refusal to recognize his manifest failure, and his penchant for criticizing later presidents in an attempt to achieve some relevance have changed my regard for him to complete contempt.
Ford: Agreed.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I dont really care about politics.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I’ll nominate George W. Bush.
I’d pretty much have to agree that he’ll go down as one of the worst Presidents in our history, perhaps only surpassed by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. At the very least he burned through the ‘good will’ we received from the tragedy of 9/11 and brought the financial burden of yet another needless war to bear on our and our childrens’ shoulders. I believe our intelligence agencies misled us through two Presidential administrations, but the burden of failure is always on the Commander-in-Chief because he ultimately makes the decisions based on that intelligence.
Nixon wasn’t a complete failure, if simply for his diplomacy in China.
BTW, I don’t believe the Teapot Dome scandal could be any worse then pardoning of Mel Reynolds or Marc Rich by Clinton, not to mention the pardons of Almon Braswell and Carlos Vignali, paid for with money from Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham. On the other hand, I wouldn’t put him in the top 10 worst list because of his signing of the Welfare Reform bill, the decision to leave the economy pretty much alone albiet with small tax raises, and the universal general good will we sincerely felt worldwide.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I’m curious where Woodrow Wilson ranks in the list. History has shown that Wilson waited far too long to allow the US to enter World War I and protect American interests. American lives and thousands more Allied European lives were lost because of his timidity. No less an authority than Theodore Roosevelt, who has to rank highly in any best Presidents list and whose visage is on Mount Rushmore, said so at the time in his column in the “Kansas City Star.”
Wilson was also an unashamed racist whose administration rolled back the civil rights advances of the Roosevelt and Taft administrations.
Most damningly, though, Roosevelt’s failure of leadership in what was supposed to be the centerpiece of his legacy, the League of Nations, has got to make him at least close to, if not in, the bottom 10.
The League of Nations was a failure from the get go and its collapse helped precipitate the rise of Hitler. The treaties that were forced on the Kaiser’s Germany after World War I were ridiculously punitive and they only fed the nationalism that led to the rise of Nazism. Wilson was a principle writer of those treaties and they held no real vision for the rebuilding of the nation and did not ban the military resurrection that ensued in the next 20 years.
It can be argued that the failure of the league of nations, and the US’s refusal to participate in it, doomed its successor, the United Nations, to the debatable revelance it has today. A strong league of nations with the political and industrial power of the United States supporting it is now little more than a pipe dream because of the failure of its predecessor.
How about it? Where does Woodrow Wilson rank?
p.s. Marc Andreessen, not Cerf, is true father of the internet and he’s gone on record saying he does NOT agree that Al Gore was right to say what he did.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Jeff Yoders: Wilson ranked at 6th best. Keep in mind that war presidents always rank high. Theodore Roosevelt ranks 5th best.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Alamo:
Nice post, and good points… but let me clarify something… I was phrasing what I said in regards to how these men fulfilled the so-called “Peter Principle.” I guess I should have been clearer in that I DO think Carter “rose to his level of incompetence” by becoming President. I suppose I let my pity for the man lead me astray there. Your points are well taken however, and history will no doubt be tougher on Carter (deservedly so) than I’ve been here.
Would that we had a president, however, in that era, who could have truly been a great leader AND done the right things. We supported brutal dictatorships throughout the world, all in the name of the Cold War… and that legacy is still pestering us, and still besmirches our good name. Bush today is making it much worse, but the abandoment of our democratic values, in regards to our foreign policy, began long before him. I know there was some necessity to it at the time… or so it may seem from this vantage point… but nevertheless I think a great and good statesman could have overcome the moral ambiguities of it. Sadly, we have been lacking in great statesmen in the last few decades of our history.
As for Nixon, I think we’re just using different terms to state the same thing. Nixon had the talent and intellect to be good at what he did, had his ambitions only carried him so far… as a secretary of state perhaps, or what have you. In attaining the presidency, however, the failings that were inside of him, that you listed, led to his downfall.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Jeff Yoders p.s. Marc Andreessen, not Cerf, is true father of the internet and he’s gone on record saying he does NOT agree that Al Gore was right to say what he did.
Umm … do you even know who the players are? Cern and Kahn were prepping TCP/IP when Andreessen was still in diapers. Andreessen would go on to work on the Mosaic browser AFTER Gore got the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 passed.
And here’s a nifty quote from Andreessen:
“He [Gore] had people buying into the concept of the information superhighway before anybody had an idea about what it would be,” says Andreessen, who profited from the traffic by creating one of the most successful on-ramps, Netscape Communications.
Andreessen returned the favor during the campaign, stumping for Gore and sending all but $1,000 of his $404,000 in donations to the Democrats. Last October, Andreessen and more than 400 other high-tech business leaders endorsed Gore, who promised to create 10 million new high-tech jobs over the next decade. … “
November 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Kennedy is suspicially absent from this list. What is up wit that?
November 6th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Kennedy is an overrated president and figure in our history… but hardly deserving of being named one of the worst presidents.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Wow, this is so obviously BS. Let’s leave out the man who marched the Indians to death (Jackson) and rank Clinton, who was hobbled by a Republican Congress, behind a president who did not a single thing right even with the full power of each branch of government.
## # # ### ### ## # # ## # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # # #
# ### # # # # # # ## #
# # # # # # # # # # # #
## # # ### # ## ### ## # # ##
November 6th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
i still think its interesting that baby Bush isn’t on here, good list anyways jfrater! You should do a top ten list of the worst world leaders.. but that might also leak into the top 10 world’s most evil men.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Go fuck yourself carl you dickbrained moron.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I find it amusing how much hatred there is for Bush. I don’t believe he is the worst president. Most unpopular? Maybe.
And if jfrater did a Top 10 Mentally Deficient Presidents list, I would fully expect George W. Bush to be number one. George Bush senior should be on that list as well.
As for the Bill Clinton attacks going on. Well, what he did wasn’t right, but it certainly doesn’t make him a bad president. I am conservative (though i am fairly moderate and am thoroughly annoyed with far right people), but even I don’t hate Clinton. He wasn’t a bad President, the whole scandal with Monica was blown way out of proportion. An affair isn’t a good thing, and it was certainly newsworthy, but it’s no basis for impeachment.
Besides, what would you do if you were married to Hillary?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
hey, LBJ has to be on the list, he escalated the war in vietnam, and expanded the government into every facet of our lives, including making african-americans a permanent underclass. no other president has ruined more lives then old LBJ. bush would have to be president for 40 more years to do that kind of damage.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Billy C:
Now now, Billy, such heated words could make you look just as ignorant as the person you are attacking.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
D Holmes:
Too late, he looks more ignorant.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
How could you have missed Carter?
November 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Where’s Bush? [slow smile]
You are a monkey…look it up; when you find its explanation and look further into this primate’s denotation you’ll find yourself looking into the mirror.
And another thing: STOP PLAGIARIZING MATERIAL; or at least summarize your context properly and GIVE EXPLICIT REFERENCE of sources you exploit that make up your site’s content.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
@ Cat Skyfire :
You’re a simian too! Just imagine: having to wait fifty years before commenting on the status quo! It is no wonder kids this day and age are being deprived of a sound education. It’s morons like you who make this happen…
So, SkyFire, won’t you go do us all a favor and find something better to do with your life, JACKASS…
November 6th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
To lighten the mood-
Oh we are the mediocre presidents
You won’t find our faces
On dollars or on cents
There’s Taylor, there’s Tyler
There’s Fillmore and there’s Hays
There’s William Henry Harrison
“I died in 30 days!”
We are the adequate, forgettable,
occasionally regrettable
caretaker presidents of the U.S.A!
I can’t believe I remembered all of that song. I am such a nerd.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
The worst president ever is missing from this list. Or does it only apply to those that have left the office?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Interestingly, Grant is on the Fifty Dollar Bill.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Amanda – I love it!
November 7th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Where is Wilson? Nobody believes that the man who used guile and lies to institute the privately owned (for profit) Federal Reserve Bank was bad? The man who signed the 16th ammendment and gave us personal income taxes (which is against the Constitution)?
The man who _admitted_ publicly to ruining our nation and putting the control of the USA in the hands of a small group of international bankers is not on the list?
I guess we all love having someone create our money out of nothing and then loan the use of it as currency to us at interest. I guess we all love paying personal income taxes.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:40 am
anotherperson, vote for Ron Paul, he wants to undo all that
and abolish the IRS
November 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am
He wants to undo the Fed? [sarcasm]Who will continue to bail out Goldman Sachs and Countrywide, then?[/sarcasm]
If Hell freezes over and Ron Paul somehow gets elected, it will become the shortest term in history. He will be assassinated before he can give his acceptance speech.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I’m confused… what are the people who made comments #62, 65, 66, 68 and 69 talking about? Who are they talking TO? Did some door open up to another discussion site somewhere?
November 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Interesting list! Does anyone know who were the ones filling out the surverys though? As in, how much bias and such?
Just out of interest.
In fact, I’ll go have a look for myself.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:19 am
from the wiki article:
[Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President George W. Bush a split-decision rating of "average".]
For those wondering why Dumbya wasn’t listed, that pretty much explains it.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:24 am
It says “scholars”. As in middle/upper class?
Still an interesting list. Thanks for the info rp!
November 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Rp, yes he wants to get rid of the fed, as well as income tax.
and wow, i wonder if they re-polled those same scholars where Bush would be now? certainly not the 6th best even in the repubs minds.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Hobolad – It says “scholars”. As in middle/upper class?
No, as in ‘most intelligent, most successful, most productive.’
November 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am
evan, he’d have to be lower now. In fact, rather than defend him, wouldn’t it benefit Republicans far more to criticize and distance themselves from such a complete failure? His term has been so disgraceful that it is a given that the next president will be a democrat, and a controversial left-leaning female democrat at that. It’s a bit similar to the damage that Jimmy Carter’s administration did to the Democratic party.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Randall, your comments are brilliant. I often felt that the public hasn’t been fair with their opinions on Ford and Carter. I always thought that they were probably the first GOOD men to enter the White House yet they weren’t very good presidents. I wish more people would take the time and look at the big picture. Ford and Carter had the potential to be great presidents, but they came too late.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Thanks Tiffany… I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say Carter had the potential to be a great president… as you can see in one of my posts above, I really don’t think he belonged in the job… but he could have done great things if he’d served *under* the right president in some capacity—as a secretary of state or some such thing.
But “good men” they definitely were, Carter and Ford.
On the other hand, we all ought to remember something–we often condemn this or that person who attains higher office for having certain failings. It seems to never occur to us what *kind* of a person it must take to have not just the gall to run for such an office, but to actually attain that kind of power and exercise it. It’s no surprise that many of these men have been what we’d call “assholes,” for lack of a better word… arrogant, at times, strong-willed, self-serving… simply imagine the force of personality it must take to just BE president of the United States. Surely very few successful career politicians make it as far as they do without having a certain degree of “asshole-ness” in their characters. We can have little doubt that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy were “good” and “nice” men (in a different sense from Carter and Ford, perhaps) and yet when you examine them, there’s also no doubt that each of them was… a bit of an asshole, to one extent or another. Surely Kennedy was. And Eisenhower–he was a general for god’s sake–a born asshole. And surely Lyndon Johnson had that trait in spades, as did Richard Nixon. Reagan was at times quite the asshole, and George Bush (the father) while trying to hide it in himself, clearly was one. And we can all agree Bill Clinton, while many things, was also quite clearly a major asshole.
This is not to say that these men were not also decent enough statesmen (though few of them reached greatness). They were. Nor is it to say that they didn’t accomplish good and even great things. They did. Nor do I believe that “leadership” requires of a man that he be an asshole. Rather, it seems that it just takes an asshole to GET to that high level of power, oftentimes. Perhaps not always… but often. (We’re too far removed in history from men like Lincoln to know if *he* was an asshole… maybe he was at times. I prefer to think that Geo. Washington was unsullied by the charge, though).
Perhaps the trouble with George W. Bush is, he is JUST an asshole; the man appears to have no other outstanding character traits. I don’t speak in a partisan sense here; I’ve been on both sides of the political fence in my life, and my life began under the Johnson administration, so I’ve seen my share of presidents. I have personally never felt such unrestrained loathing for a president of my country… I’ve never seen anything even remotely redeeming in the man’s public face. Maybe America likes a bit of asshole in its presidents, and maybe this explains why we got stuck with Bush instead of Gore in 2000. Bush seems to wear his “I Am An Asshole” character out on his chest like a badge; Gore’s little devil is buried, covered up. Indeed, Gore might have been one of the nicer men we’ve had in office in generations, had he made it. Not that I think he’s *devoid* of asshole-ness… but it certainly seems to be a very minor aspect of his persona.
But come 2008 we will probably be stuck, again, with either another big asshole (Guiliani?) or the female version, the Gigantic Bitch (Hillary).
November 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
um,…what. how the hell did andrew jackson not make the list? trail of tears? indian removal act? illegal seizure of native american land? the man was an arrogant bigot who gave government positions as rewards to friends. kitchen cabinet? petticoat affair?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“No, as in ‘most intelligent, most successful, most productive.’”
Scholars to me sounds like University graduates, people in top jobs. Success =/= intelligence.
If this was done with a representative sample of people, from all walks of life, then it would be more, I guess accurate, but as it is it’s interesting and helped waste a few minutes so I’ve no problem with it!
November 7th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I almost felt sorry that such an otherwise competent prosecuter, Bob Barr, allowed emotion to get the better of him when he only had two points to prove. 1.Bill Clinton lied to cover up a crime. The Lewinsky affair was relevant because he used the same M.O. with her that he used with Paula Jones. “Do you wanna kiss it?” 2.Bill Clinton knew that the evidence was admissable because he used his own pen to sign the Bill allowing evidence of other sexual harrassment conduct to be admissable to the type of case that he was defending. The conspiracy that he orchestrated to cover up his obstruction was another case altogether.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
For all the complaining about Bush, it seems pretty clear that hatred for Carter is downright pathological in some people. Apparently not only is he responsible for the Iranians engaging in an open act of war, he’s also directly responsible for the fact that the Pentagon couldn’t figure out that a sand-covered desert is not Vietnam. After waiting a suitable time, and having set things up to catch Khomeini and his goons flat-footed, Carter ordered a secret strike and rescue mission. What else do you guys think should have done? Install sand-filters on the Huey air intakes himself?
There’s a difference between bad and bad luck. Carter certainly wasn’t the best, but you guys have absolutely no clue just how horrible and corrupt most 19th century Presidents were.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Hmm…I really thought George Bush..the second..would be on here.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Alisa did you read the afterword part of the list?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:57 am
GW Bush should be at the Top.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
GEORGE BUSH???!?!??! WAR CRIMINAL.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:58 am
What about Andrew Jackson? He wanted to wipe out all the Native Americans! He gave them blankets laced with small pox. I think genocide would at least get you on the list! And thats just one of the worst things he did!
November 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I’m very surprised that one of the worst president we ever had isn’t on the list, namely Abraham Lincoln. So many people want to sing his praises because of the strides he made against slavery while ignoring the fact that slavery was a side issue that he only took up to weaken the south during the Civil War. The Civil War was not about freeing the slaves, it was about the south wanting to split from the Union and creating a seperate country. Slaver didn’t enter into it until Lincoln announced the emancipation proclomation in an attempt to economically cripple the south. Beyond that, during the Civil War Lincoln commited so many acts of civil rights violations and crimes that he should have been impeached on the spot. Jailing people without informing them of their crimes or formally charging them, then holding them without trial for indefinate periods of time, not to mention spending money without congressional authorization are just a few of the crimes he commited. But we look at him and say “He freed the slaves, what a great president.” One act of good does not a good president make.
Although it runs counter to how many people feel, I look beyond things like petty criminal behavior (name me one elected official that doesn’t lie or use their power in ways that would be criminal for ordinary people) and look more at how much good or evil their presence has done for the country. On this note the worst presidents in history are George Bush Senior and Abraham Lincoln (his crimes go beyond the petty crimes of most politicians) and the best are Nixon and Clinton. I do not mention Bush Jr because he is not the president. A president is elected while Bush is a dictator who used illegal means to worm his way into the white house (Hello, the only state in country where the vote was disputed just happens to be the one where his brother is govener, thousands of black voter in that state that largely would have voted for Gore were disenfranchised becuase of errors made by a company hired to process their voter registration that was hired by Jeb Bush, and that the final ballot count was hindered by the Florida secretary of state who just happened to be Bush’s campaign manager)
November 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Ace531 – I am always surprised by how many people do not know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the Union states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and what is now West Virginia; nor did it free the slaves in parts of the Confederacy that were already under Union control. That, to me, is the utmost hypocrisy – slavery is wrong so we’ll say that your slaves are now free but not our own! I’m not a huge fan of Lincoln myself; I feel that he gets credit for keeping the country together when if he had not been elected President secession might have been avoided to begin with.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Abe Lincoln bashing eh? Interestingly, he is constantly ranked alongside the likes of George Washington and FDR as one of the greatest presidents of the United States.
The three of them are also in Civilization 4 as playable leaders.
I looking through the internet a while back (as always) and came across a book called The Real Lincoln. Give it a check.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln
Suddenly I just thought of an interesting ideas for a list: Top 10 What if Scenarios.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free ANY slaves…
The Confederate States at that time was an independent country— with a constitution, a government, currency, and a standing (and fighting) army.
Lincoln made a statement to rally support for an increasingly unpopular war. It was all pomp and circumstance. Though Lincoln didn’t legally recognize the CSA, that does not take away from the fact that the CSA, until its ultimate defeat, was not beholden to the laws of the US.
(History buff here. Not an opinion, just is what it is…)
November 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I am impressed with the list. Its nice to see the rankings were done based on the mistakes made by each of the presidents rather than the personal sentiment of the creator of the list.
I do not think, though, any president we’ve had deserves merit. What we may consider the age old presidents from America’s infancy do not strike me as “the best” considering the struggle for freedom in American only included white people.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
XayTay: Well considering the odds many presidents had stacked against, some of them should be applauded. Someone’s views on race should not be the deciding factor on whether or not that they are a good leader (just look at Woodrow Wilson, he cracked the top ten of the greatest U.S. presidents and he was an unabashed southern baptist racist). You also need to look at the times, especially in the early days when America was (believe or not) NOT the only country with slaves. Even more, slaves were introduced to the New World by European powers for their advantage.
What happened to these people was unjust, but that is irrelevant to what changes our past presidents and how they should be stacked.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
this list means nothing if bush isnt number 1
November 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mike: I understand your sentiment, but the problem is that many presidents through history would have been voted worst by the people they governed – so we need to give history a bit of time to work its magic in a list like this. In 5 – 10 years we will know the true ramifications of the current President’s time in office.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:48 am
you guys are morons any one with an ounce of historical knowledge would concede that nixon, opened up the east,(china) wich no other president even tried to attempt. This has huge implications to modern day trade. As far as watergate he covered some it up,it was never proven he told them to break into dnc headquartes because why, he feared the mcgovern campaign, ha. He wasn’t great but wasn’t awful, i would replace carter with him in a heartbeat, 14% inflation enough said. As for Dubya, he is the only pres to get involved in the middle east all others said f it. Eventually sombodys has to do something over there we can’t continue with a foreign policy of f it. History will treat him alot kinder than those that know absoluty nothing about middle eastern history. If you people watch the history channel more than american idol you may change your opinions
November 9th, 2007 at 2:45 am
where is Bush????
November 9th, 2007 at 3:11 am
aud: read the note in the beginning, assuming you’re talking about jr.
fuhippies: About Bush- I think time will tell, esp if he vetoes the new SCHIP bill & ENDA. Maybe not the worst president, but everything from Iraq and Katrina and limiting civil rights for the first time in 50 years will add up. As for “opening up” the middle east, Carter did it better and first.
You’re right about Nixon about China. We’re finishing up his presidency in my upper division college history class. A lot of credit is not given- other stuff like Cambodia also work in conjunction with Watergate and dismal economic policies.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:11 am
What I found interesting is the change in the parties during our 200+ years of history. When will we replace one or both of the inefficient parties of today with one of leadership and insightful guidance into the future? We need to have a leader that can move us away from oil and into alternative fuels. We need a “power” revolution. Take us to the next level and make us the leader of the world again. China owns our jobs and stole them from us with subsidies of their factories. These two things are why the USA (I love it here, visit WV)is losing it’s power in the world. Who wants our money?
Maybe a Green party of intelectuals who can think ahead is what we need.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:57 am
fuhippies: Remember that watching the “History Channel” is not an acceptable substitute for obtaining an accredited education or even just for reading a book. Yes, it’s better for you than watching “American Idol,” but, you know… that ain’t sayin’ much.
Nevertheless, your exhortation that people do just that (watch the History Channel) made me laugh. Thank you. Though I know you didn’t mean it to be ironically funny, probably.
Firstly, there is a great deal of evidence for the crimes Richard Nixon committed; you need to pick your head up off the desk and read a little more. The Nixon administration *orchestrated* that election in ‘72… they used all manners of dirty tricks, spying, falsification of material to embarrass the Democrats… all so they could systematically knock the strong Democratic candidates out of the race, one by one, so they’d be left facing the weakest: McGovern. Then they went after him. (Hence the break-in to Democratic headquarters, which finally blew the lid off the conspiracy). They also went after Daniel Ellsburg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers). The entire conspiracy was well documented and masterfully uncovered by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Now, you can argue if you like that Nixon only ever had the charge of cover-up pinned on him, but it’s certainly known he was guilty of obstruction of justice… and if you’re going to tell me that all of these crimes were going on around him, perpetrated by almost every major member of his executive team—and he didn’t KNOW about it—well, then, fuhippies… if you believe *that,* then I’ve got a bridge here in Brooklyn to sell you.
Your statements about the current Bush are even more nonsensical, but maybe someone else would like to tag you on that one. If not, I’ll be glad to do it.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Rickbelpre:
Sorry to be a cynic, but do you really think that a government will ever be uncorrupt or ‘good’?
In the thousands and thousands of years of human history, not one has stood or remained clean…
Sorry man, I just don’t have a very sunny outlook on the future of government (especially ours), if the past is any indication.
Rome is about to fall again…
November 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
JT… well spotted… just a shame not all US voters are as observant as yourself!
I was hoping that it would be one of those English v US spelling issues… but it was not.
Still, my spelling shortcomings have little or nothing to do with the US voting Bush as President.
As for the Irony reaching critical as a result of my spelling (a little overkill never hurt anybody)… the retarded twit even got a second term in office!
November 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
i didn’t check my spelling so i know its a little off
why is the history channel not acceptble because you say it is. Do they or do they not get their info from books or do they just make all of it up. Usually they have people that tell of first hand accounts. Unless these people are lying then i see no need to see them as less of an education vessle. I will take a first hand account over anybody who writes stuff down on what they herd! (see the bio on Saddam and his sons) The fact of the matter is this, every book tv show have the elements of propaganda because humans can’t write the facts down in an unbiased light. Both sides of the politcal spectrum are guilty of this. What you got to ask yourself is which one manipulates the facts for benifit of their own gain or whats best for the country. Sadly, i feel the former is more truer rather than the latter. Oh and by the way, i read enough to keep my head of the desk, I just really don’t give a damn enough about the sixties to read about, i would much rather read 1776 a great book but i guess it doesn’t have the bells and whistles of a book about breaking into a campaign headquartes, ohh the intrigue. Carter really did a banner job in the middle east letting the sha of iran get over run by the iatola, by the way how did he handle that situation again, he sure brought the hostages home fast. The man has no spine and the worst foreign policy president ever,conceding to russia on missle treaties that left us dangerously behind the ruskies in the cold war. Kruchiev(sp)even admitted that Carter was weak. What i mean about Bush is that he is the only one that effectively tried to interven besides lolly gaging around with peace treates between Isreal and Palistine like everyother pres. Islamic militants have hits us since the seventies and no other president did anything substanial rather than bombing a few buildings. Remeber, arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even though you won, your still retarded
November 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The History channel (while i love watching it) gets things wrong sometimes, and often show a very watered down version of the account. Not everything is wrong by far, but you notice things that are incorrect quite a bit. Usually they are small things, like talking about a specific ww2 tank while they show a picture on the screen of a totally different tank, sometimes theyre big mistakes. It doesnt happen too often, but enough to notice.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
fuhippies: First of all, before you call everyone here a moron, I did list Nixon as one of the top presidents of all time. He may have covered up a crime, but he did more good for this country than most other presidents could ever have hoped of doing. Second, even before Dubya was in the white house he showed that he had absolutely no sense of foreign policy and would have led us to war with somebody eventually. It was only the timing of 9/11 that happened to turn his attention to the middle east (after he made a complete fiasco of the Isreali/Palastinian affair which was one of the events that triggered 9/11 in the first place). Was the Afghan war a good idea, sure. We had almost the entire world in agreement with us on that one, because we were defending our country after an attack and trying to bring an international criminal to justice. But then he f***ed it all up by attacking Iraq. He didn’t attack Iraq to look for WMDs. Of course Saddam had WMDs, the US had watched him use them before and in facts helped him obtain them. He only attacked Iraq because 1) he needed to boost his popularity that started to decline after the Afghan war because of his poor domestic policy and thought another Middle East war would be the answer and 2) he wanted to finish what his daddy started. Even Dick Cheney stated in an interview in 1994 that it would be a catastrophy for the US to ever invade Iraq and try to oust Saddam.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Yarr: I believe you may be right. Unfortunately Rome (USA) may be about to fall. It is always nice to believe that smart people would be able to prevail over money. You know what I mean! Thanks for the response. Rick
November 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
jfrater: “I understand your sentiment, but the problem is that many presidents through history would have been voted worst by the people they governed – so we need to give history a bit of time to work its magic in a list like this. In 5 – 10 years we will know the true ramifications of the current President’s time in office.”
Exactly. People called for impeachment when Lincoln was in power, yet he’s at the #1 spot on the list on the Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents list.
Though, I seriously doubt Bush will be looked back upon w/ fondness. He’s been a pretty ineffective President, but I doubt he’ll ever be at the top of this list.
Ace535: Read a history book before you start bashing people and making false assumptions. I don’t consider Lincoln the greatest president of all time, but he didn’t commit all of these “civil rights violations” and whatnot that you are claiming. But seriously, there have been considerably worst presidents than Lincoln by far . George Bush Sr. shouldn’t even be considered the worst (though not the best by a long shot).
Besides, his Emancipation Proclamation doesn’t make him a bad President. It may not have freed any slaves per se (though it prompted some slave owners to do so), but it was good that a president finally came out and admitted the wrongdoings of slavery.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Abe lincoln rocks. Godd thing he is noton this list
November 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
D Holmes: I have read history books and much more and I make my comments about Lincoln not out of opinion or assumption but based on documented historical fact. My sources include Time Magazine July 4, 2005, as well as The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo of which there is a quote by Richard Gamble of the Independent Review that states, “The Real Lincoln… seriously compromised by careless errors of fact, misuse of sources, and faulty documentation. [...] Ironically, it is essentially correct in every charge it makes against Lincoln, making it all the more frustrating to the sympathetic reader” So even from a source that is heavily criticized against the author still states that all charges made against him were true. In the book Lincoln Was Responsible For the War by H.W. Johnstone it states “The United States Government and Abraham Lincoln began the war by committing at least four flagrant acts of war, against two vital points in the South, weeks before Fort Sumter was fired on.” In Holland’s The Life of Abraham Lincoln by Josiah Gilbert Holland he observes this quote from Fremont, Lincoln’s opponent to re-election “Had Mr. Lincoln remained faithful to the principles he was elected to defend, no schism could have been created, and no contest against him could have been possible. The ordinary rights secured under the Constitution have been violated. The Administration has managed the war for personal ends, and with incapacity and selfish disregard for constitutional rights, with violation of personal liberty and liberty of the press.” If need be I can come up with another dozen sources if you like. Try looking up just one book that isn’t politically biased towards him and you might find the truth. Don’t ever accuse me of making false assumptions when you assume that what I say is wrong when I can back my statements up with documented proof. I don’t see any sources for your assumptions that what I say is wrong.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Where’s Bush?
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 am
W
November 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
What the fuck? Where’s Bush?!
=]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
This list needs an update.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
George W. Bush is not included in the list??!!
December 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
bucslim: How is a time of war a tough time to be president? You get to the bottom of a threat on our country and go to war with whomever was involved, hopefully coming out a hero. What you do NOT do is go to war with someone who is not involved. You also do not take away some of the basic freedoms of the people in America (Patriot Act) for no reason, essentially for oil, just like your daddy did. You don’t condone torture either. I know I’m missing things.
Also, I thought Nixon should be higher on the list.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Miss_ali, its because of people who think like you that wartime is a hard time to be a president. I agree with you to an extent about bush JR. but Bush SR had good reason to go to war, why do you thinkthe rest of the world backed him up?
January 12th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I miss President Bartlett…
January 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
The others may be forgotten, or forgiven fot their misdeeds, but the 5 worst presidents really are:
5. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Bush
3. Warren Harding
2. Richard Nixon
1. George W. Bush
And the best 5 are:
5. Thomas Jefferson
4. Andrew Jackson
3. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
1. John F. Kennedy
February 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
As far as the list goes, I found it to be very interesting. I will admit to not having the most knowledge about these former leaders, so one take on them was intriguing.
As far as some of the comments, personally I think that I would rather have a horny president as opposed to one who can’t even articulate a proper English sentence. But that is only my opinion. If you don’t like it, so be it. I don’t ask anyone to agree with me.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH GEORGE W BUSH!!!
did i mention GEORGE W BUSH!?!?!?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Unfortunately, GEORGE W. BUSH! Was not anywhere near the worst president of the US.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I thiink that Andrew Kohnson should be #1!!!!
February 29th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Everybody who says the Bush is so bad, what exactly would YOU do in his place? Leaving Iraq now would be like leaving in the middle of a surgery in which you are extracting a bullet from an infected wound in a patients leg, but have not finished removing it and haven’t closed the wound up, either. What exactly do you think will happen?
March 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
This list blows where is that wimp Jimmy Carter?
March 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
In the aftetrword it says nixon moved to 10th and coolidge moved to tenth
March 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
the women of the world were asked if ‘they’ would sleep with Bill Clinton.
80% responded…”What, again”
April 1st, 2008 at 4:47 am
Lyndon Johnson should be on this list, it’s his fault we went to Vietnam.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Wow…reading all the comments about Bush show that the liberals haven’t learned anything from history. It’s gonna be funny when/if a democrat gets in and the war doesn’t suddenly come to a stop. And unfortunately, Mr. Bush is indeed a lot more intelligent than 99.9% of the people who criticize him on the safe haven of the internet.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 am
Geez, you guys, what’s with the Lincoln bashing? The man himself hated slavery and campaigned for the 13th amendment during his terms. The E. Proclamation, whatever its political motivations (which I believe were mainly good, but feel free to read revisionist historical accounts) was a momentous occasion in U.S. history. So he wanted to keep the country together and stamp out slavery – wow, what a jerk! *rolleyes*
“The man who signed the 16th ammendment and gave us personal income taxes (which is against the Constitution)?”
Holy… are you really that stupid? An AMENDMENT to the Constitution automatically becomes a part of the Constitution on the same level as the original document, and it automatically nullifies any contradictory passages in the original. That’s why amendments were made possible – because the founding fathers, unlike you, understood that a stoic and unchanging document, like a similar government, could not fully serve its people over time. Hence the ability to make CHANGES to it, through a ratification process difficult enough to make it rare.
Complain about income taxes all you want, lazy rich kids, but the 16th amendment MAKES them Constitutional. Libertarians usually aren’t ignorant enough to use that tired and entirely false argument, so I’m surprised to see it came up at all.
Plus, Wilson didn’t sign anything. No president ever signed an amendment. It’s entirely ratified by Congress and State Conventions. Which just further proves your hilarious ignorance. I’m no fan of Woodrow – too racist for my tastes – but c’mon now.
And in case anyone is curious, this is the average historical ranking of the ten best presidents compiled from that same Wikipedia page mentioned above:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Andrew Jackson
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. James K. Polk
April 21st, 2008 at 1:01 am
Why you skip the name of Bush. Remember, during his era of Presidency the whole world is fired with the blood of humans. Being a human, no one notice his bad policies. Even some presidents helped him to make his bad policies.
I think his name should be placed top of the list.
Thanks.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
you forgot George Walker Bush…..
don’t wait for the historians to come to that conclusion….
May 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
truman LBJ clinton JFK FDR jackson
May 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
In the words of Sir Stephen Colbert,
“George W. Bush, great president or greatest president?”
May 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
too early to tell for GWB.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
whole ranking please
June 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
1-Jimmy Carter- All roads to 9-11 starts with the Master of Malaise- The Shah, The Ayatollah, Russians in Afghanistan, the Hostage Crisis and the Misery Index
2-James Buchanan-Failed to head off the Civil War
3-Franklin Pierce-Ditto
4-Woodrew Wilson-A sanctimonious bigot who give America WWI, the income tax, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the League of Nations
5-Rutherford Hayes- Short-circuited Reconstruction for almost a hundred years and damaged race relations
6-Lydon Johnson-Vietnam & the Not So Great Society
7-Richard Nixon- Watergate, Impeachment & Resignation
8-Bill Clinton- Monica Lewinsky, Impeachment, Perjury, selling of Pardons, Hotel 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and overall general sleaziness
9-Herbert Hoover- Botched the Great Depression (see Smoot-Hawley)
10-George W. Bush- Won the War, lost the Peace
June 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
First of All, anyone that says Lincoln is a bad President is either from the South or an absolute moron devoid of intelligence, or both. He is virtually always in the top 3 BEST Presidents by most lists, and is often considered #1.
Thankfully, the leading minds in history are smarter than many of the people commenting on this page. Carter? Clinton? Woodrow Wilson? A grand display of ignorance. Wilson is one of the better Presidents and Clinton & Carter are no prize champions, however they had some brilliant achievements that trump the other notable failures. Same could be said of LBJ, who failed at Vietnam, yet succeeded at passing more legislation than any President other than the four terms of FDR.
Secondly, I’ve seen this list before, it is not by any means definitive. Many lists find Clinton & Nixon higher and W. and his father lower.
While the jury is still out on W., The Washington Post is reporting that a majority of 109 leading historians find him to be the “worst President in U.S. History”. So it doesn’t look too good for ol’ W.
The story is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802255.html?nav=rss_email/components
June 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Anyone that thinks George W. Bush is the worst President of the United States has either not studied American history at all, or they only studied what their 2nd grade teacher told them about the Revolution and the Civil War. There are so many presidents that are worse than him. About every president after Jackson and before Lincoln were 10 times worse. They failed to address the issue of slavery, plunging the nation into Civil War. Buchanan let 7 states secede.
Grant’s presidency was plagued by corruption and Carter didn’t do anything positive except make Egypt and Israel talk.
Bush has kept this country going after terrorist attack, and there hasn’t been another since 9/11. I’m surprised the economy isn’t worse after 9/11. Things aren’t that bad. Less Americans have died in Iraq than in the Mexican War, or even on one side of the battle of Antietam.
Frankly, you’re all a bunch of spoiled brats. Foreigners don’t hate us because of our wars or policies, they hate us because we live in the greatest country on the planet, and all we do is bitch about it.
Before you start saying Bush is the worst president in history, study history.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
No way in hell Lincoln even comes near this list!
W. is definitely the bottom of the barrel. As the previous comment says, Bush’s legacy is so bad, historians can conclude he’s terrible before he’s even left office. That’s really saying something. It usually takes a few years to judge.
This article also puts Bush at the bottom of the list.
http://www.soapblox.com/index.php?p=166
June 10th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Ryan,
You talk about history as if it were written on a bathroom wall. Its as if you just took a class in 19th Century America. You compare Iraq to the Mexican War? Wow. Apples and Oranges. A 19th Century conventional war vs. a 21st Century Guerrilla War are not comparable. You should compare it the Philippine-American War, oh but than the casualty rates would be considerably higher than the Philippines and on par with death rate so you wouldn’t be able to. Besides, the casualty rates for Iraq are quite high, well into the 30,000 range, its the advances in field surgery that kept death low at less than 10% of casualties. Also, comparing Iraq to Antietam is deceptive since it is the bloodiest day in American history, far bloodier than even D-Day. Different kind of war, different era. Besides that’s your argument? This war isn’t as bad as that war? I happen to believe 4,000 needlessly dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and many many more maimed and wounded for an unjustifiable cause is far too many. This was the first preemptive war in American History and it has proven to be a massive strategic blunder that made Iran more powerful, regardless of whether or not it is less bloody than other wars. Numbers do not make blood any less red.
Bush kept the nation together after 9-11?! LOL. How did you come to the conclusion that the nation would have fallen apart without the leadership of this chimp? He took 9-11 and pushed retro-active tax-cuts for the major corporations and squandered all the good will in the wake of the attacks like a gambler at the track. Good God, get a new argument already for the man fell asleep at the wheel and allowed us to get attacked in the first place.
Funny you mention Grant since Bush’s presidency is often compared to Grant’s not just for the spoil system (incompetent political appointees) and Bush’s scandals have been quite profound as well. Far more serious stuff than Clinton’s blow job, that goes to the root of Constitutional power in this country.
It sounds like you’ve never traveled abroad otherwise you wouldn’t sound like such a dolt on what foreigners think. Maybe you should go get some world experience, see how other people live, then conclude why they hate us, you’d be quite surprised how well many other nations have it. Until then, you should not put words in other peoples mouths and for your own sake, stop using the “greatest nation on the face of the Earth” argument. The era of simple minded slogans is coming to an end and you’re a relic of an age that looked at politics like a football game.
Maybe you think that things are so great, but maybe that’s because you’re actually the one who’s a spoiled brat, which is more likely the case. The past 8 years have seen an amazing downturn in American Power. Maybe you can stand back and do nothing, I sure as hell won’t. You must be one of the 20% that still think he’s doing a good job. LOL Makes sense. Do you think Iraq was behind 9-11 as well?
The above mentioned article clearly lays out that historians think Bush is the worst President in history. Your argument completely falls apart next to that. Especially since you are likely getting your history from books written by the very guys that think Bush is the worst President in History.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:09 am
you cant grade bush yet but i will say that my top ten are
1) abe
2) andrew jackson
3) woodrow wilson
4) carter
5) harding
6) grant
7) hoover
8)jefferson
9) john adams
10) kennedy
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
BUSH……loves his oil…..and should be number 1 or at least make him a bonus
June 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I’ve spent a lifetime reading biographies, historian’s offerings, political science, scriptures, newspapers, periodicals and now web sites. Nothing is more fascinating than reading expert’s “rankings” of people they have never met but on whom they consider themselves an authority.
Being guilty myself, I would like to proffer my nominee for the worst American President.
Included in my criteria for judging the performance of same are the following standards: 1. Did he meet the daily requirements of the job? 2. Did he honor the office of President and leave the office stronger than when he took charge? 3. Did he inspire the American electorate, American politicians and for that matter other nations to follow his exemplary leading? 4. Upon leaving office did he become an ambassador to the world that Americans can take pride in? 5. Upon taking office did he have a vision of where he wanted to lead America, was he able to project that unique vision to the American people and did he achieve at least some of what he set out to achieve?
My nominee for America’s worst President scored 0 on my test. There may be other Presidents that have scored 0 as well but the only way anyone could possibly be a poorer President than Jimmy Carter (I voted for him.) would be if they sold America lock, stock and barrel to the Arab nations or the Chinese. As a matter of fact we may have that guy running for the office of President of the United States as I write this.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
WW:
I’m interested to hear how it is, based on your little system of criteria, that you feel Jimmy Carter is a worse president than Richard Nixon. Or for that matter Ulysses S. Grant, or Warren Harding.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Thanks for asking.
Make no mistake, Nixon was a seriously flawed man. Certainly much more so than Carter. I have never attended one of Carter’s Sunday School classes but I know someone who did and I’m sure I would enjoy it. I think Nixon did in fact have the “vision thing” for America. I’ve read his books and consider him to be one of the best “politicians” that America has ever produced, for what that’s worth. Nixon and Kissinger screwed around for ever in Viet Nam and deserve no credit for anything involving getting out of Viet Nam but it was under Johnson that this mess got started. As Junior Bush is finding out it’s easy to start a fight and not so easy to stop. I voted for Humphrey over Nixon by the way. I did vote for Tricky Dick the second time. I have to give Nixon a 1 and not a 0. He had some successes. (China, SALT, Law enforcement, EPA, Consumer Product Safety Act.) You have every right to disagree.
Harding as I have read believed in and preached racial equality. He received an honorary degree from the University of Alabama and told a segregated audience of 20,000 whites and 10,000 blacks “I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizenship…. We cannot go on, as we have gone on for more than half a century, with one great section of our population, numbering as many people as the entire population of some significant countries of Europe, set off from real contribution to solving national issues, because of a division on race lines.” Did anything get done? No! But it took guts to say this in that setting. If he hadn’t died in office maybe we wouldn’t have needed Martin Luther King and he would still be alive and preaching. I think Harding like Carter was a good guy that reached his position of incompetence. (Peter Principle)
Grant was a General that won. I think he was an honest man but like Carter way in over his head as a President. He certainly was no better than Carter and deserves a 0.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
WW:
I love the Peter Principle, one of my favorite faux-scientific psycho/social theories. I never cared if it was really supportable or not–it always made great sense that ultimately people rise to the level of their incompetence, if given a chance.
Certainly I agree with what you’ve said here, but nevertheless, I don’t find the logic in proclaiming Carter as the VERY worst president. Let’s remember that he inherited much of the grief that surrounded his administration economically, and it’s for that economic mess that he’s largely remembered (with shivers). On the other hand, his very existence took us, finally, away from the prickly memory of Watergate (in a way that Ford could not) and he DID manage the Camp David Accords.
I think you’re being a tad hard on the Carter. He and Gerald Ford were probably the nicest men to inhabit the White House in… oh, at least in this century. May not mean for much, and I certainly wouldn’t give Carter much more than a few decimal points above zero myself… but the absolute worst? Nah. There’s other candidates for that.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Randall:
To be honest I think the thing that sticks in my craw about Carter is that I did vote for him and I was wrong. I expected him to be an exceptional President and he ended up being an abject failure in everything he did. (My wife voted for Ford and hasn’t let me forget it. I lost a lot of credibility in that election.) What makes matters worse is he is still sticking his nose into areas he doesn’t belong. Remember the South American(?) election he was monitoring but he had to get back to Amy’s birthday party so he just said “Looks good to me” and left?
Anwar Sadat was the hero of the Camp David Accords as far as I’m concerned. Jimmy had little to do with it other than hosting it.
I’ll go with Jimmy being the worst President of my lifetime (66 years)and leave it at that.
I’m sure you would argue with my “favorite” President of my lifetime. Harry Truman! I think it is a shame that we will never have another Lincoln or Truman as President because we live in an age where the “most money wins.” We don’t elect Presidents anymore, we elect Prom Kings.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I was sort of surprised that Hoover wasn’t on the list. Unemployment skyrocketed when he was in office.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:17 am
I don’t think I have read even one historian that has accused Hoover of being responsible for the Great Depression.
The only comment I would make about Hoover is that I sure wish he could run for President now. For that matter I wish he had been available to run in 2004 and 2000. Hoover, in my opinion, would have been a much better candidate than Junior Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. It just shows how far our Presidential pool has sunk. Hoover may not have been anything special but compared to our recent candidates he looks like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln all rolled up into one.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Carter as worst? Don’t think so. He was no prized President, I’ll give you that, didn’t communicate with the Congress to get bills past, didn’t understand the game, carried forth Ford’s turnover of the Panama Canal, a Reagan rally cry, however he did bring stability between Egypt and Israel that has endured. In addition, it was his strategy in Afghanistan to invest heavily in the Mujahadeen that led to the Soviet’s demise, carried into Reagan years under Dem. Charlie Wilson. All Reagan did was throw billions down a drain to create a star wars system that couldn’t shoot down a bb gun pellet.
Hoover IS widely regarded as having a great deal to do with the Depression, but by no means responsible. Smith’s VP Robinson invented stocks on margin (which is one major factor), yet Coolidge and Hoover insisted on the WWI repayments from Europe in Gold, weakening the Euro markets, stopping expansion. Harding furthermore assured the big businesses to keep producing even though the demand was tanking. Hoover did nothing while the market headed for disaster, the stock market collapse was just reality setting in. Hoover continued to do nothing, insisting the market would recover. His handling of the Bonus Marchers alienated millions of WWI vets, further creating widespread instability and potential for much more. It was a highly turbulent time and could have gone anywhere, revolution was a possibility, many say fascism, others radical socialism or even communism. Thank God for FDR, that’s what people like my grandfather say! And even FDR faced a coup by the major corporations to establish an authoritarian regime with the help of Gen. Butler, who refused and went public. The Depression was a wild time and Hoover gets no points for sitting on his ass and letting it all burn down.
Only Republicans speak highly of mediocre failures like Hoover and Coolidge, because it’s all they got. The fact is most Republican presidencies have really no lasting legacy. Only Eisenhower (who debated running as a Democrat) proved to be great. Nixon had his moments but the good was so out-weighed by his failures. Reagan is highly glorified yet achieved very little but scandal, shrinking the middle class, withdrawing from Beirut disgraced, conquering Granada (what an accomplishment) and tripling the national debt. He sure did look good in front of the Statue of Liberty tho. lol Oh and you little righties reading this, Reagan did not win the cold war. I hate to break it to you.
And Abe Lincoln, worst? Wow, thankfully every intelligent association of historians and leading thinkers place Abe as first or in the top 3. He saved the nation from dividing (which proved more beneficial to the South), emancipated the slaves and began the end of an unjust and immoral institution and made strategic and tactical moves that are so brilliant they are unmatched by ANY president. That’s why he has a monument, holiday, his face on a coin and bill and sits on Mt. Rushmore, because uhm, that’s where our nations GREATEST Presidents go. Anyone who says otherwise is alone in their thinking.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Justin,
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. I suspect my father and your grandfather were about the same age. I remember very well the morning after Eisenhower beat Stevenson and the conversation my dad had with a friend of his. They were both FDR Democrats and of course had voted for Stevenson. I grew up 30 miles away from Stevenson’s home. There was absolutely no animosity toward Eisenhower. He had been elected fair and square and my dad’s candidate had lost. He felt that both were exceptional men and either would make a fine President.
I’m curious as to your opinion on what happened between then and now? I sense that you are angry and basicly despise anyone that disagrees with you. Republicans obviously fall in this category. You aren’t alone. Whether I am watching commentators on TV, reading the newspaper, reading blogs or talking to someone about “politics” it seems like everyone is angry to the point of being mean toward people that disagree with them.
I remember the Florida fiasco in 2000. I told my wife the best solution would be for George Bush to be a gentleman and concede Florida to Al Gore since it appeared that it was going to split the country right down the middle. She didn’t agree with me but in retrospect I think I was right.
Did the Viet Nam war do this? Surely not. You would have to be practically 50 years old to even remember the Viet Nam war.
In my opinion our candidates for President are getting weaker and weaker with every election and the American electorate is getting angrier and angrier with every election. Where do you think this is going to take us?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Re: Jimmy Carter
This is the image I have of the leadership skills of Jimmy Carter. It’s taken from Clark Clifford’s book “Counsel to the President.”
“… in July of 1979, President Carter retreated to Camp David for ten days and summoned a wide variety of national leaders and opinion-makers to offer him advice.”
Clifford says that at a meeting of some of these leaders at the Laurel Lodge “The President of the United States, in blue jeans and a polo shirt, sat on the floor, a yellow legal pad perched on his knees.”
Carter began the meeting by saying “I feel I have lost control of the government and the leadership of the people.”
Clifford then goes on to say “He invited comments on almost any subject. As he filled page after page with his own careful notes, I became increasingly disturbed at the formlessness of the exercise. Hugh Sidey captured my concerns in a thoughtful column in Time: “From such a mishmash of people, prejudice, and points of view,” Sidey asked, “could an executive distill any rational policy in so short a time?”
Clifford continues “Many of our comments were highly critical, but the man on the floor with the yellow pad never flinched, methodically taking notes as, one by one, most of his guests told him that the nation was drifting and disappointed in his leadership.”
To me, Carter the leader of the Free World, was prostrating himself before the most powerful men and women in America and telling them in effect that he was in over his head. Was it a humble thing to do? Yes. Was it what a strong leader would do? No of course not. I voted for him because I thought he would provide strong moral leadership to America. Instead he turned out to be a peanut farming Sunday School teacher. Nothing wrong with that in itself but there is a lot wrong with that when we were looking for a President.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I think Jimmy Carter should be in the bottom 5. And Tricky Dicky well, he should be in the top 3, mabye the worst. Peirce and Buchanan’s places should be swaped
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
WW,
The charge that I am “angry and basicly despise anyone that disagrees with” me is quite a mis characterization and must be answered. To put words in another’s mouth, especially words so inflammatory is unfair, and often a very deceptive deviation from the facts that lay at hand. It would be wise to allow my own words to speak for what I think. Furthermore, I AM a bit angry, however not with people I disagree with, as I agree with much of what you said of Stevenson and Eisenhower, and I disagree with you that candidates are getting weaker. It is more the decline of the 4th estate (the media) that is creating a dumbed down atmosphere in current politics, along with a half dozen other factors. I often find the “good old days” argument to be somewhat of a myth. The notion that things used to be great and have declined ever since is usually dramatized, if not a complete misconception. Read what Mark Twain says of politicians and you will surely see that they were no better 100 years ago.
What I am angry at is outright ignorance. People who think they know what they’re talking about because they still remember their textbook in highschool, or took a 100 level course in American History. While I find Republicans distasteful, there are a few arguments on the Right that I agree with. An intelligent conservative is fun to debate, despite the fact I disagree with them. LOL fun because they use talking points so much it makes them quite easy to turn in circles. They often raise their voices and yell like O’Reilly and turn red. It’s good fun. Many of the people posting here however, and I won’t name names, are as ignorant as they come, and I don’t mean they’re saying things I disagree with, they are saying things that would be outright laughed at if spoken in the presence of historians, like saying Abe Lincoln is the worst President (how can anyone be so naive?), or that Carter should be in the bottom 5, or that W is a good President by any measure. Carter made bad decisions, but they don’t compare at all to the men mentioned here in this bottom 10 list (who were corrupt, incompetent and achieved nothing but long-term damage), Ol Tricky Dick Nixon is not in this list because despite his enormous corruption, he achieved some important acts, like the China strategy and the Clean Air Act. While it is a little early to judge Bush, the outlook is NOT good when a majority of historians in a popular survey rank him as worst and only 2 believe he will be remembered fairly:
http://www.soapblox.com/index.php?p=166
These remarks are those of Partisan rank and file who just recite what they heard on Hannity this morning.
As a graduated and always ongoing student of history and political science, I see politics for what it is b*lls**t. The side I take is that of my country, and those who vote for values and partisan bickering as opposed to using their vote strategically are in dire need of education, they should start with the constitution.
People are angry because they have been stirred up on purpose. The “Culture War” is one of the greatest campaigns of distraction since the institutionalizing of Jim Crow in the 1890s. The Iraq War further divided the nation, as it reopened the wounds of the sixties, which indeed was one of the greatest cultural revolutions of our time (not just in the U.S. As Barack Obama said in his book, he sees the politics of today more a replaying of the Baby Boomer division in the sixties.
It’s easy for politicians to get nothing done, while driving around in fancy cars and enjoying the Franking Privilege when they have someone to blame, and the rank and file follow suit blindly, like a soldier earning more wealth for a powerful warlord. It is not until one side screws things up so bad, that they lose power, change can occur briefly until the cycle continues there after.
I don’t see the partisan battles continuing. The Republicans shot their wad and their time has come to an end. Even if McCain wins, the party will be thrust in a new direction. A great Progressive era is more likely than the alternative. It will be a time of reform and resurgence, where America will again find her confidence. The other alternative is too grim at this point for anyone to seriously consider, and a real long shot. America has problems ahead, and as new generations rise up, as hard economic times settle in, as the far reaching destructive arm of Bush continues to haunt us, as creating a sustainable economy continues to challenge us Americans will shed the decadence and look to rebuilding our dilapidated nation.
Than the cycle will start all over again, just as it has in the past and will continue into the future long after we are gone.
I sometimes write over at soapblox.com if you ever want to talk more politics.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Justin,
As I expected, an outstanding, well thought out response. Thank you.
I find it very encouraging to read someone as obviously bright and informed as you are that feels America “will again find her confidence.” Unfortunately I disagree but hopefully the reason is the difference in our ages. I’ve never been this old before. Maybe my feeling that America has run it’s course is because I am someone that has in fact ran their course.
I do agree with you that the Republican Party is dead. I think Nixon was waiving goodbye to it when he got onboard the Presidential helicopter the last time.
Bush is someone to blame of course and there always has to be someone to blame. I’m certainly not going to defend his policies but America’s future leadership is going to have to guide America through some very dangerous waters. Blaming previous administrations for their mistakes won’t cut it. Bush made a decision to invade Iraq. It certainly appears to be a stupid decision. Barack intends to pull the troops out of Iraq. That may also end up being a stupid decision. The point I’m making is that regardless of the political party, decisions have to be made. Some will be good, some will be bad and some we may not know whether they were good or bad for decades. (Even then we won’t really know.)
Lincoln made a decision too and a lot of our ancestors died because of it. Was it the right decision? I think it was but I didn’t have to fight for the Union. The Confederate states after much bloodshed on both sides were forced to rejoin the Union and free her slaves. Were African-Americans treated as “equals” from then on? Of course not. That took another 100 years and another “war” lead by Martin Luther King. (A war fought with a lot less bloodshed than the Civil War I might add.)
What if Lincoln had told Jeff Davis goodbye and good luck? Lincoln could have said to him “We don’t need you and eventually your black slaves will rise up and kill their masters anyway.” I’ll go out on that limb. I suspect that with the development of mechanical means to harvest cotton and political pressure from England and the Northern States of America slavery would have eventually been abolished in the Southern States of America without a war. I don’t know how long it would have taken African-Americans to achieve the equal rights the Constitution promises them but it sure couldn’t have taken any longer than the 100 years it did take.
In the final analysis what did America gain by it’s Civil War? Probably nothing. Yet you and I judge Lincoln to be one of our greatest Presidents if not the greatest. America lost a large per centage of it’s male population and a huge proportion of it’s wealth simply because Lincoln wouldn’t allow the southern states to succeed from the Union. Lincoln made a decision and 150 years later we say “good decision” because we were taught as kids that it was a good decision. I think you could make a pretty good case that it might have been as dumb as the Bush decision to go into Iraq because we simply don’t know what would have happened if we had taken the other path. Personally I don’t see how it could have turned out much worse for the African-Americans than it did. I further suspect that the south would have eventually decided it was in their best interests to rejoin the Union. Similar of course to East and West Germany. There isn’t any way we could know what would have happened if Lincoln had chosen the other path and the same is true with Bush. We think we know, but we don’t.
I’ll take you up on soapblox.com. I’ll look forward to seeing what you have to say over there. Thanks again for your response. I didn’t intend to put words into your mouth. My intent was certainly not to attack you but rather to provoke an honest response and you provided that.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I meant “secede” not “succeed.” I really am too old for this. For instance I have no clue what “LOL” means. (Lots of luck?)
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
where’s Bush?
July 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Hey WW, LOL means laughing out loud.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:39 am
I am not a Bush supporter. In fact, I dislike the man. But, at least he stands up for what he believes in. (Albeit wrong as far as most of my friends believe). The reason why he is so hated is because he actually stands up for what he believes in. It would have been nice if Clinton had done this. Clinton was a great politician, Bush is a better man. Clinton said what needed to get him elected. Bush says what he believes. While many don’t agree with him, at least he says what he believes.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
WW,
I appreciate your response as well. You obviously do something many of our fellow countrymen do not, which is think. Like this “Let’s Be Honest” character above who believes that Bush is a better man than Clinton because he “stands up for what he believes in”. This sort of nonsense will not do in the future, as the masses of people who do not vote begin to do so, the whole idea that a politician who “stands up for what he believes in” will fade away for a time, as Americans awaken to the fact that a politician is not someone you should like or even respect, he/she is an instrument of power. Who’s power? That is where it gets complicated AND it is the hope of humanity for great change.
Politics is the art of cynicism, and apathy has an amazing way of evaporating in the face of a growling stomach. I know, because I, myself am struggling. I am educated, working 3 skilled jobs in a city with many opportunities, and yet, I am scrapping by. The one income household is dying off, and this is the core of our problems.
As America hurts, it responds. The very essence of the Revolution is evidence of this, so is the Civil War, the Progressive Era, The Great Depression, World War 2 and the Cultural Revolution of the sixties. In between, there is always a backlash, a return to Normalcy if you will, an age of Conservatism. It always dies off when the people realize they’ve been screwed over by the forces that control them. They fight a hard fight and get a little more, than seem to squander much of it away like a gambler at the track, voting in complete buffoons like Bush, misguided idealists like Reagan or lackluster middle Presidents like Clinton. Yet much like the Hegalian Dialectic, we slowly move onwards toward an increasingly better society, which ironically, leaves us working just as hard with more complications. Hell, at least we get air conditioning. LOL
I agree that it is, in the end, about decisions. Lincoln made some of the toughest decisions in the history of this country, as did FDR and Washington. It perhaps isn’t fair to rank them against men like Chester A. Arthur or even Bill Clinton, who were not faced with the same kinds of challenges.
However, in judging Lincoln, his success is not only in saving the Union. It is far deeper. The South was a rural economy. It could not survive on its own, which is the REAL reason they lost the war: small population, less economic resources. A Union blockade of Cotton finished them off pretty handily, along with Lincoln’s Emancipation, which convinced Europe to stay away, (a brilliant move). The South never stood a chance, really, since the North never committed its full industrial strength to the war (unlike the World Wars). Lincoln saved not only the Union but the United States. The North boomed economically, as war barons profited from salted pork barrels and railroads. In the long run, economically it was a beneficial arrangement for the North and South. Perhaps the South on its own would have faltered and begged to rejoin the Union or become a worthy trading partner, who knows. The loss of good, young men (and currently women) is almost never justifiable, yet it achieved the end of slavery, it made the United States a stronger nation economically as well as politically and set the stage for the American Industrial Revolution. This is at the core of what makes Lincoln a great President, and distinguishes him from lesser men.
The saddest part of all is that, to me, the Industrial Revolution was America’s downfall. We sowed the seeds of destruction when we put all our eggs into the basket of Industrial Lazes Faire Capitalism. It made us strong, however, now, it is causing our decline, as greedy industrialists move on to other nations to exploit their cheap labor. The saddest part of all is that the American People do nothing while their jobs disappear, health care system fails, education declines and strength diminishes. They fall for demigods that push immigration as our chief problem, while these same Republicans sit on the boards of corporations that profit heavily from the cheap labor. As but one example of the hypocrisy we face. It is nothing new from the problems of the 19th Century. Will this continue? I hope not!
The corporation is a non-sustainable, self-destructive machine and a relic of the 19th Century. If you are making money on something that is non-renewable, you will eventually run out, plain and simple, then what? There are newer ideas brewing that are more fair, sustainable and more economically viable. The Elite’s grand plan of a global free market will only make the Chinese more powerful and further the destruction on the planet that may consume us all. It will eventually fall to the people to make the choice. Will we return to a dark age and chaos? Perhaps. It is on the horizon. Will we avoid it?
I am not an optimist, I am actually a fairly cynical person. Yet I know my country, I have traveled across her vast fields of corn and seen much from the Golden Gate to the Statue of Liberty. I have spoken to many of my fellow citizens, like yourself and I see the strength of America, she will rise again, if only for the last time. Their is great trouble ahead, many challenges which will fall to a new generation and subsequently there after and so on. People like Bush will only be anecdotes in a nation with a great history. He has achieved nothing, and even set many things back, yet the country will move on, forget him. Just another brick in the wall of history, left to wither away in the rain, to be buried by the sands of time.
Just like the rest of us I suppose.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I hate how everyone gives Bill Clinton crap for what he did. The only person he hurt was Hilary, and she forgave him already! I’m not saying what he did was okay. But he apologized and Hillary forgave him. Besides, when Bill lied to the country the worst thing that happened was that he probably slept on the couch that night. When George Bush lied to the country, we invaded a country that never hurt us chasing after non-existent WMDs, and thousands of our soldiers died, plus tons of innocent Iraqi civillians. And to make matters worse, WE STILL HAVEN”T CAUGHT THE TERRORISTS THAT ATTACKED US!
July 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Franklin Pierce is a babe.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:59 am
“truman LBJ clinton JFK FDR jackson”
You have the right general idea. Put Woodrow Wilson in the # 2 slot, after moving the bungling socialist, interventionist FDR into the top slot and you’re on the right track. Jack Kennedy had the potential to be the worst ever, but, unfortunately he got shot before he could do as much damage as Roosevelt or some of the other Dem fools we’ve had. He was still godawful, though. Note: We’ve never had a president that was bad enough to deserve being killed, which is why I say that it was unfortunate that he was shot.
As much as I loathe Bill Clinton, there’s no way he’s as bad as the other Dems on the list.
Best 20th century presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
The criticisms of Abraham Lincoln on this thread are some of the most fatuous nonsense I’ve ever heard in my life. As nonsensical as the leftist hysteria currently being directed at George Bush.
George Bush is too liberal to be considered one of the best, but he’s better than anyone since Coolidge (Eisenhower and Nixon were pretty close…both also too liberal, but both got us out of senseless wars that the interventionist liberals bungled us into…at a cost of 100,000 American dead, way to go Truman/Kennedy/Johnson).
Best all time: George Washington by a wide wide margin.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Coolidge does not deserve to be on there. That betrays an obvious populist bias.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
wow…you guys fight alot…
July 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Good God, get a new argument already for the man fell asleep at the wheel and allowed us to get attacked in the first place.”
LOL. Unlike the leftists’ great hero Roosevelt.
Of course, there are many differences between Bush and Roosevelt. Bush had been in office only a few months before 9/11, Roosevelt had been in office many years before 12/7. One president had virtually no time to prepare for a surprise attack, the other…well he had plenty of time.
Bush inherited ongoing wars in Iraq, and with terror groups like Al Qaida.
Roosevelt inherited an America that was neutral and at war with no one, and managed to bungle us into the second worst war in U.S. history, all by his lonesome. It was the Roosevelt administration’s policies that put us into conflict with Germany, Italy and Japan. Not so in the case of George Bush and our little mini-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Only about 4,000 Americans have been killed in wars that aren’t George Bush’s responsibility.
Around 400,000 Americans were killed in a war that was totally Roosevelt’s responsibility.
If left-leaning historians (which is just about all of them) applied the same standards to Roosevelt that they apply to Bush, then Bush would be rated far above Roosevelt…which is correct.
George Bush is ten times the president Roosevelt was.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“In addition, he [Nixon] had ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia.”
Crap.
“An official United States Air Force record of all American bombing activity over Indochina from 1964 to 1975 was recently declassified by President Clinton in the fall of 2000. The data reveals the true extent of the bombing of Cambodia, as well as Laos and Vietnam. According to the data, the Air Force began bombing the rural regions of Cambodia along its South Vietnam border in 1965 under the Johnson Administration.”–wiki
In fact, Nixon simply continued the policy begun by the liberal Democrats.
Like most “facts” presented in the list that heads this thread, the claim that Nixon ordered secret bombing in Cambodia isn’t a fact at all, it’s leftist propaganda. Whether you think that bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail was a good idea or a bad idea, it was a liberal Democrat idea not a Nixonian Republican idea.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:09 am
well i hope that there will no more worst president then..no more 11th worst president…hummm this comming election hope that Obama and McCain wont be one of the US worst president…they should focus in solving the economic crisis..
The housing market crisis is a major issue in the upcoming US Presidential Election and has a significant impact for all Americans where Obama and McCain talk about in http://pollclash.com .just like soaring oil prices are affecting the costs of everything from food to gas and even houses rental. There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact. While there are many issues, we need to look at our next leader and determine which will have the best course of action going forward. Both candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama are attempting to address the issue and differentiate their positions from one another. And I think that everyone is missing the point of this. We need a new resource. We need a solution to this problem not another way around it…
July 17th, 2008 at 7:19 am
try to see this http://pollclash.com/ maybe you can add some worst resident hehehehe
July 18th, 2008 at 4:33 am
1.Jackson-Trail of tears. 2.Nixon-Watergate, resignation, the bombing of cambodia 3.Buchanan-Civil war 4.Bush Sr.-Gulf war 5.Harding-Teapot dome 6.Hoover-Great depression. 7.A. Johnson-Impeachment 8.F.D.R.-4 terms, WW2, new deal, pearl harbor. 9.Wilson-WW1. 10.Pierce-Kansas-Nebraska act
July 18th, 2008 at 4:53 am
10 best- 1.Washington-Made a U.S. democracy. 2.Lincoln-Held the union together. 3.Jefferson-Louisiana purchase. 4.Reagan-End of cold war. 5.Kennedy-100 years ahead of his time & thinking of space exploration. 6.Clinton-Great economist. 7.T.Roosevelt-100 years ahead of his time & thinking of conservation. 8.Truman-ended WW2 9.Eisenhower-Interstate highway system 10.Bush Jr.-Made an iraqi democracy
July 18th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I don’t think it’s fair to refer to Grant’s issuing of General Order No. 11 in the context of discussing his faults as president since that order was issued during the civil war, several years before he became president. And if you are going to refer to his alleged antisemitism out of context, why not also mention some of his many good qualities? In an age when racism was rampant, Grant was in many ways an enlightened man. In an 1853 letter to his wife, he wrote of the Native Americans: “It is really my opinin [sic] that the whole race would be harmless and peaceable if they were not put upon by the whites.” The Indian Peace policy that he introduced 18 years later as president makes quite a contrast to the Indian Removal policy of Jackson, one of your “outstanding” presidents.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am
avi – Your Best Presidents:
I think it’s too early to judge the presidency of either Clinton or W; Their supporters exalt them and their enemies malign them.
While I don’t want to exclude Clinton entire presidency based simply on him being charged and admitting perjury and obstruction of justice, he was, in fact, impeached. But there are many good qualities to his presidency; Signing the Brady Bill, enacting the Workforce Investment Act, the reform of Welfare, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, fighting Medicare waste and fraud, the elimination of 16,000 pages of Fed regulation, signing the National Voter Registration Act, etc.
But there were many questionable characteristics of his administration, such as the Mike Espy affair, Whitewater, the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the firing of the WH Travel office staff, etc. that bring a mark to his terms in office. Many people would point out, rightly, that Al Gore’s committee recommendations on air travel security and the subsequent buckling on it’s initiatives just days after large donations from the air travel industry could have prevented 9/11, but I don’t necessarily agree you can judge a presidency by what it didn’t accomplish, so much as what it fostered, such as economic growth.
Likewise on W. While it’s tenable to say W removed two of the most dangerous, backward, and repressive regime’s in the world, getting us into a quagmire in Iraq will leave his presidency scared, but by no means worse, I suppose, then LBJ’s Vietnam escapades.
My feeling is that it’s too soon to judge Clinton or W as the worst or best, because of the long term impact of policies they implemented that may not have come to fruition, as of yet.
Clinton’s ‘ECONOMY’ was largely the work of a Republican Congress and an aggressive, skilled Fed Chair. Remember, Clinton first vetoed a balanced budget and Welfare reform. Likewise, while W’s invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, his war in Iraq seems self-serving and poorly planned. While the outcome of a another democracy in the Mideast is indeed an accomplishment, many Americans question the timing and resources spent to achieve this goal. Only time will tell if Iraq will sustain it’s freely elected government.
Histories perspective on these two presidents will have to wait until the rabid dissenters and supporters interest wane a bit.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
avi – Your Worst Presidents -
While your list does contain some rather nefarious Presidents in history, I differ on some critiques you’ve made:
Including A. Johnson for his impeachment alone seems a bit overreaching. Rather he should be remembered for his veto’s of various Civil Rights measures, his alignment with the racist Democrats, and his blocking of the Fourteenth Amendment. While he was a poor executor to be certain, I wouldn’t necessarily label him the worst. His quick reconciliation of the Confederacy into the Union and his purchase of Alaska from Russia should be noted for it’s historic significance and benefits.
Rather I would include another Johnson; LBJ. While LBJ’s accomplishments with the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964 was significant, many historians would argue that it would have happen anyway, under any administration, during that turbulent period. What should be remembered is his role in the Gulf of Tonkin incident and his buildup of forces in Vietnam. His failed incursion and war with the North Vietnamese, and our subsequent withdrawal from SE Asia in 1974 still reverberate through our society today. While he wasn’t the originator of the aggression towards the North Vietnamese, he significantly increased our presence and virtually guaranteed our defeat with his policy of containment, which he later abandoned. Too little, too late, in my opinion.
His misguided, but well intentioned ‘Great Society’ policies and burdensome tax rates contributed to the problems of another President I would nominate for worst: Jimmy Carter. Carter’s appointment of Fed Chair Volcer, who almost immediately raised the discount interest rate to 12%, can not be characterized as anything but a disaster. The reduction of the military budget by $6 billion, the failed policy towards Iran, and his dismill reaction to the economic crisis in America characterized Carter’s Administration.
While Carter’s role in the Camp David Accords are praise-worthy, his complete failure on improving the domestic economy made many Americans wish he’d spent more time trying to repair the latter, rather then the former. Consider just the rise in inflation during his tenure: From 5.8 in 1976 to 13.5 in 1980.
Also, consider that Jimmy Carter even stated in 1976 that “..no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high, had a right to even ask to be President.” This was when the index stood at 13.5%. When he left office, it had almost doubled to 21.98%.
I would remove Wilson, despite his racist views and our foray into the ‘Great War’. His speech on ‘14 Points’ and his work to promote an international body of United Nations, long before the creation of one, are a testament of best that America should offer the world.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
BTW, for the rabid Anti-W crowd that permeate these boards, here’s a comparison of Iraq to Vietnam:
US Casualties from war during term:
LBJ: 47,569
W: 4,520
Average cost per month for war:
LBJ: $5.1 billion (adjusted for inflation)
W: $5.8 billion -1
Troops deployed:
LBJ: 185,000
W: 167,000 -2
Civilian Causalities:
LBJ: 522,000 (Enemies killed: 750,000)
W: 85,980 – 93,794 (Enemies Killed: 17,731-23,560) – 3
1- Obviously, better equipment cost more. Today our troops wear body armor that can stop an AK-47 round. This would have undoubtedly saved many lives in the Vietnam war. But the cost is disturbing, nonetheless.
2 – While Johnson depended on a draft to supply troops for Vietnam, today’s enlistments are completely voluntary. There’s little doubt among historians that I’ve read that the Vietnam war could been sustained so long strictly on volunteers.
3 – I used Iraq Body Count and Antiwar.com for civilian and enemy deaths.
My point is that while W’s war in Iraq has no doubt robbed us of 4,044 American lives on the battlefield, Johnson’s war cost us more dearly. Furthermore, W’s war in Iraq has caused more civilian deaths for every enemy we kill, then LBJ’s. This is, in my opinion, because the insurgents actions of fighting mostly in populated areas, but nonetheless, is disturbing.
I welcome anybody to critique these numbers and post their own. With references, of course.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Loose_Cannon:
It is not, of course, strictly because of the war in Iraq that Bush is bashed nearly everywhere (except in pockets inhabited by the most rabidly right wing and assorted crypto-fascists in our population). His presidency, in fact, has been fraught with nothing but failure and a severe erosion of our economy along with an equal erosion of our image abroad. His overall foreign policy is a disaster and things at home clearly aren’t so hot either.
Let us also recall the motives behind the two wars; one was a conflict rooted in the Cold War, and part of a larger policy of containment of communism in Southeast Asia. The other… well, no one’s been able to really assess what the Iraq war was and really is all about. Clumsy and ill-considered Neo-Conservative plan to plant “viral democracy” in the Middle East which would then spread to neighboring countries? Sinister grab for American control over Iraqi oil reserves, under the cover of other motives? Bizarre attempt to furnish a location for a well-spring of new terrorists–so we could “fight them there and not at home”? Merely George W. striving to complete the job he felt his father should have finished back in the early 90s? All or none of the above? At any rate, it’s proven to be a costly and pointless (it seems) diversion away from the war where our attention *should* have been–Afghanistan. And there, too, there’s a certain lack of parallel with Vietnam. Vietnam may have been a “distraction” of sorts, and certainly ill-conceived in any case–but there wasn’t another conflict going on elsewhere from which Vietnam was drawing needed resources and national attention. Unless you count the “cultural conflict” going on at home.
Vietnam, in this sense, was a more “contained” debacle. It’s damage to American prestige and military morale was weighty, but temporary and not overwhelming–at least not in the grand scheme, though its ghost haunted the American military right up to the Persian Gulf war. Iraq, however, is merely the largest and most obvious piece of an enormous blunder, reaching across all lines of foreign policy–and we have yet to see A) its conclusion or B) what the legacy of that larger blunder will be.
It is, in that sense, somewhat spurious to compare the two wars.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Randall- :sigh: Randall, we get it.
You are a rabid anti-W, anti-Conservative freak who can not possibly grasp the historical impact of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, UN Resolutions 678, 687, or 1441, the bi-partisan hearings on the threat of Iraq which resulted in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq nor the other 40 nations that took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We get it that you can’t be objective in this discussion, because of your blind, uninformed hatred.
It is completely legitimate to compare Vietnam with Iraq, in the sense of Presidential performance. But because you can’t completely inform yourself on the motives and legitimate reasons for invasion and overthrowing Saddam, you will never ‘get it’ in the objective sense.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
My top 10 worst
1. Franklin Pierce
2. Warren Harding
3. James Buchanan
4. John Tyler
5. Zachary Taylor
6. Abraham Lincoln-Yes I MEAN IT
7. Richard M Nizon
8. Calvin Coolige
9. Herbert Hoover
10. Aurthor
August 16th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Lewis- Why Lincoln?
Sure he didn’t have the noblest reasons for abolishing slavery. He did it mainly because he wanted the English as allies in the civil war. But he still got rid of slavery, didn’t he? Isn’t that enough to at least keep him off the bottom ten list? Whether or not he got rid of slavery for righteous, noble reasons isn’t that important. The important thing is that slavery is gone because of him.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Actually, he didn’t get rid of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation said that slaves should be free, but had no true legal power. It wasn’t until the ratification of the 13th amendment that slavery was actually abolished and that was passed after Lincoln’s death. Besides, as I stated before, one good deed does not make a good president. I would say mass civil rights violations and abusing the presidental powers on a scale not seen before or since puts him solidly on top as the worst ever.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Loose_Cannon,
Before you go flaunting informtaion around and calling people misinformed, perhaps you should try looking at the information yourself and interpreting it properly. If you actually read The Iraq Liberation Act of 1988, it states that it was the policy of the US to support a “regime change” and a transition to a democratic government in Iraq. This would mean that would would support anti-Saddam groups and recognize a legitimate Iraqi government without Saddam, not that we would decide in our arrogance that we had the right to invade another country using false information about WMD’s and Al-Queda links to lie to the public and force that regime change. Meanwhile we needlessly get thousands of our own people killed and set up an illegal occupation in the name of big oil.
Beyond that, UN Resolution 678 only gave authorization to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not invade Iraq. UN resolution 687 had to do with dismantaling its chemical and biological weapons arsenal and pay reparations to Kuwait, not invade Iraq. UN resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final chance to comply with previous UN resolutions but specifically stated that material breaches of this resolution should not immediately result in war which require another UN resolution, one that was never made. Iraq agreed to 1441 and allowed weapons inspectors in who found no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons, only some rockets that violated their restrictions which were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was based on false and misleading information and therefore has no basis for consideration in this argument, especially since the basis of the Authorization couldn’t even be proven after we invaded and inspected the country ourselves and governmental agencies have since confessed that it was lies and propaganda since. You are the one who can not remain objective due to your blind and ignorant support of W. I also note that you only talk about Iraq and do not decry the rest of Randall’s assertions such as our decaying image abroad or the massive total failure of Bush’s entire presidency. Way to go Randall, couldn’t have said it better myself.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
One would have to include Woodrow Wilson as one of the worst presidents. Because of his hatred for blacks and support of the KKK. Wilson’s faillure to improve relations with Mexico, and lack of diplomacy in preventing or ending World War One without U.S. military involvement. Refusing to leave office after suffering a mind crippling stroke. He was a horrible leader.
Also, I don’t think Taylor belongs on the list at all, and neither does Harding, because the Reagan and Bush 2 administrations were just as corrupt. Hoover should be on the list. The man who rebuilt Europe after WWI refused to rebuild his own country during the depression.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
For all of those who think that Dubya will go down as the worst based solely on his approval ratings, remember this:
Truman left office with an approval rating near Dubya’s level. He is now ranked at ~ #7
Carter left office with a similar approval rating – after ONE term
They didn’t have these polls in the 1800s, but Lincoln would probably have had a rating in the single digits.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
clarificication on that last point about lincoln: certainly not at the end of his term, I’ll admit
October 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The worst is George W. Bush. Close number 2 is Ronald Reagan who set the time bomb ticking with his idiotic deregulation policies. What we’ve seen in October 08 is just the beginning of what he has set out in his terms.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Justin, you’re an idiot if you think the iraq war was the first preemptive war by the USA. The mexican war and phillipines wars were both started and fabricated by the US on the grounds of stealing territory from other countries (in this case, Mexico and Spain).
Also, it is foolish to think the iraq war was the worst war the US has engaged in. What about Vietnam, which we had no reason to go into, but did anyway and cost the lives of over 30,000 american troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent vietnamese? Communism back then is the same thing as terrorism today. A stupid false reason to go to war with another country.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Buchanan is BY FAR the worst president. He did nothing to prevent a war that killed over 600,000 American citizens.
As for Bush 43, I think that, unfortunately, Obama has inherited the burden of Bush’s legacy. His actions in office, and how the current crises conclude (if they do), will affect history’s view of Bush 43.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I used to think that Tricky Dick Nixon was the worst president in the last 50 years until G.W. Bush came into power. Reagan has got be be #3 because of his supply side “Reaganomics” which gave us the first stock market crash since 1929, the long ensuing recession and he started the ball rolling on deregulation of big business (he deregulated the S & L’s which lead to the S & L crisis). He also ran up the biggest deficit in history (until G.W. Bush, that is).
Dubya took a government with a balanced budget, a country that was prosperous and at peace, made a 180 and gave us the biggest deficit in history (due to borrowing trillions from foreign powers for his an unnecessary war with Iraq, which he and his minions cooked the books on intel to start) he pretty much ignored Afghanistan after the initial invasion to start his war-for-profit in Iraq, made it his mission to completely deregulate big business, giving us the Enron scandals, the mortgage crisis and financial sector meltdowns as well as more poisonous foods, toxic and defective goods than I’ve ever seen before in my 58 years. In addition to gutting most of the banking and financial industry protections put in place after the crash of 1929, he methodically went about attacking good chunks of the Bill of Rights with his warrantless wire-taps, “executive privilege” orders, institutionalization of torture and destruction of habeas corpus.
Here we are now with the absolute biggest mess since prior to FDR. Obama has a plateful. I pray every day that he’ll be able to make a dent in bringing down this pile of dreck that Dubya has deposited.
P.S. 60,000 American troops died in the Vietnam debacle, not 30,000 and the loss of Vietnamese and Cambodian lives from our our involvement in S.E. Asia are many more times that.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
WHAT ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH….. he’s is by far one of the most corrupt and ignorant elected officials the American public has ever been dumb enough to elect…..TWICE.. morons.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Well, the least “well known” doesnt constitute for being the worst, and I think thats what this list is. PS- ANY pol from MA (or IL for that matter), esp. MA should be on a list of worst…
November 15th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I would have put Wilson here.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
we all know that lincoln freed the slaves mainly to cripple the south, but he was already an outspoken opponent of slavery before even receiving the republican nomination for president. he was also very generous in the reconcilation between north and south after the war. just b/c he wasn’t able to make the entire country do an automatic 180 turn on the treatment of freedmen within his lifetime doesn’t make him even remotely one of the worst presidents.
FDR did screw up w/ the forced relocation of japanese-americans during ww2, but on the other hand, he brought us out of the great depression, gave aid to churchill, and we won the war. so he broke even–not one of the worst.
JFK is just plain overrated. he had ideas for civil rights and space exploration, but it was LBJ that actually got it done(despite him being an asshole).
GW Bush should be an honorable mention just b/c he managed to turn about every country in the world against us within his first term. that’s some real asshole talent. wasn’t elected by the people, lied to the people, and caused alot of people to die. what more could you ask for?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Both George W and his dad should be on the list, Along with Ford.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
yeah if people r so upset with us b/c we are all bitching, then why did all world look so brightly at the U.S. when we elected obama?
while i doubt anyone could do well in this environment bush has set up for us, i think he will do good enough for re-election and dumb down the troops in iraq, and see that the president is at least the US is making an effort to be the greatest nation in the world.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am
Hey Bucslim, he might have been the horniest, but the guy new how to run a country unlike “W” who to me has been the biggest liar of them all. In fact, why don’t you go and help him find those weapons? Help him clear the defecit as well. I don’t care what a person does in their private time. Whether he used a cigar on Monica or not. He ran the country and did a great job doing it. The only thing you idiots remember is the Monica thing. He screwed a few willing women while being married. Better than the Raping lil Georgie put on this country.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
You missed the guy who served before Abraham Lincoln. Oh god, who was he? He was pretty bad, though. The 15th preseident was the worst, in my opinion.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
thank you, Susan! Bucannon. that’s the worst preseident of the United States. As far as good presidents go, we had JFK, Lincoln, Roselvelt, FDR, and everybody’s forgetting this one, George Washington.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
This is a pretty stupid discussions of the presidency.
First, methodology: by averaging surveys between 1948 and 2008, this list systematically biases itself against the earlier presidents. In addition, it ignores changes in the office of the presidency; in particular, pre-Civil War presidents are necessarily less effectual than modern presidents because that War, like WW2 and the Cold War afterwards, vastly great the federal government & the power of the presidency.
Second, measurement: There is no standard offered for measuring good vs. bad. Take, for example Coolidge : half of the discussion concerns things he did before being president (which is just stupid) and none of it concerns the failures in his domestic policy which lead directly to the Great Depression – the worst non-war disaster ever to befall our nation. Coolidge and Hoover should share honors for ineffective domestic policy.
Third, W: If Teapot Dome is a reason for rating Harding as worst, well enough … but then George W Bush ranks far beyond worst. Teapot Dome was small change compared to the financial giveaways and other corruption of the 43rd President’s administration.
No objective observer can claim W was anything but a complete disaster from both a foreign and domestic policy standpoint.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Let me put in a good word for Buchanan.
In hindsight, we see that the Civil War was the greatest disaster ever to befall our great nation (… even George W Bush would have to work overtime to match the Civil War’s damage.) But the South was not going to give up slavery, and slavery was not going to last forever. (In fact, slavery has not entirely gone away; it’s just not legal, but there are prosecutions for it now & then.)
So Buchanan’s main failing was not forseeing the inevitable. If he’d found a way to make a soft landing, he would have been one of the greats, but the Civil War was set up in 1776 when our Founders caved to the Slave States as a necessary part of winning our Revolution.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
JFK? he had potential, but died too soon to be either good or bad. It’s a tragedy but there it is.
LBJ is a positively Shakespearian character; on domestic policy one of the best (signing the Civil Rights bill, cutting poverty in half), but Vietnam was a total disaster and, more to the point, AVOIDABLE. He’d be on any list of 20 best AND 20 worst.
In a way, Nixon was just like LBJ only clumsier. When LBJ crossed the line cleverly enough not to get caught, Nixon was crude enough in his attack on his political foes to get caught, and had to flee office to avoid impeachment. Whatever positive points he gets for working with China against the USSR should be offset by his equally damaging continuation of the Vietnam war and expansion into Cambodia, with awful results … for which we’re still paying the price. Domestically, he was neither especially good nor especially bad, so for his attack on our constitution he deserves to be in the top 5 bad.
Reagan ,once you get past the mythology, was one of the worst presidents ever. Cancelling Carter’s Energy-Independence drive was a strategic decision for which our great nation has paid dearly in blood and money. Reaganomics was also a disaster; when Reagan came into office we were the greatest exporter of finished goods and importer of raw material; after 30 years of Reaganomics (I do not except Clinton in this) we are exactly the opposite. Instead of high-value-added jobs creating finished goods, we are depending on low-value-added jobs in service and resource industries – selling off our assets to foreigners to keep things going. This is how great nations crumble, although the aristocracy does just fine.
As for Carter: I would just like someone to propose a policy toward Iran that would’ve worked any better propping up the cruel regime of the Shah. It was a losing game all around, although he should have cut the Shah loose earlier perhaps. Carter DID start America on the road to Energy Independence, which would have saved us 2 or 3 later wars; funny thing though, the oil company’s candidate beat him in the next election and canceled the programs.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
WOW. That was a lot of posting in a short period of time. What set you off to make this your grail?
December 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Interesting discussion. But how do you define “presidential greatness”? Are there for example any good articles naming certain criterias?
I find Buchanan, Pierce and Andrew Johnson much worse than Harding…
January 19th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Bush. Where on God’s unholy earth is bubba???? He’s got to be numero uno. (In case you’re reading this, soon-to-be ex President Bush, that’s ‘number one’ in English)
January 20th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Need to add Reagan and George W Bush to this list. Reagan was the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Lincoln also had to appease the average man in the union who still didn’t embrace their black brothers, Maybe if he lived longer He would have gone further with black liberation. The US may have had a black president before now. He couldn’t be too radical or northern states would have jumped also. It was a sound political step because of a desperate situation. All the presidents other than Polk from 1841-1861 sucked and there were weak ones from 1861 until Teddy Roosevelt. What did Clinton really do that was so much to peoples dislike. We admired JR Ewing on Dallas for his womanizing ways what Clinton did was no different. It didn’t make him a weak leader and he is generally a bright and decent man. Are we rating people for being inept or for being immoral. Lincoln was neither. Clinton was not inept and Hillary didn’t leave him so what are we bitching about. The US was prosperous under Clinton. He just left people alone and lent a hand if needed he was one of those solid caretaker presidents like Johnson. Eisenhower and Kennedy started Vietnam that tied Johnson’s hands but he cared about the oppressed more than any other president. What did Kennedy do to be so admired. If Bobby lived he may have been the best ever but john was clinton without savvy, just the words of a good speech writer. Pre Beatlemania sex and fluff not a real president. Camelot can kiss my ass.I cringe when people dote over him. Here is my five best:1. Lincoln , 2 FDR 3 Washington 4 Clinton 5 Teddy Roosevelt Worst 1 GW Bush 2 Bush Senior 3 Kennedy 4 Buchanan 5 Andrew Johnson Overrated: Jackson, Wilson, Reagan, Eisenhower, Monroe. Underrated Clinton, Adams senior, Adams Junior. Men who never had a chance to be good due to circumstances Carter, Ford, and Hoover.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:17 am
We all know steve is an idiot. Reagan prevented your kids and my kids from having to do nuclear fallout drills because of Soviet expansion. the cold war ended because of him. Deal with it.
The worst President ever,hands down.. James Earl Carter. Quite possibly the most inept, self rightous irrelevent flunky ever to waddle down the pike. Our current war on terror is 100% in this buffoons lap.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:38 am
jdc ~ Could not agree more on Carter. You sound like a smart guy, was Clinton really top five? Didn’t he dangerously downsize the military and miss opportunities to deal with the growing threat of terrorism and make every move based on polling? Plus, he just oozes smarminess to me.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Yeah, Reagan was so terrible he won 49 states. Thanks for your ignorance Steve. And leave W alone for now and let history catch up with him.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:41 am
The cold war ended because of Reagan? The best you can say on that front is that he accelerated an inevitable process.
He also deregulated banking and initiated economic policies which have lead to the current financial meltdown. Just because he was popular does not mean he was a good president. Bush won two elections and he was quite possibly the worst president any of us will ever see.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
George W. Bush is the worst for his attempt to shred the Constitution and setting forth a depression. He is followed by Richard M. Nixon who also did not like to run thing by the rule of law and who continued to bomb the life out of Viet Nam. Third worst is Ronald Reagan who pushed Capitalism and set us up for the Bushs of the world. There are aother worsts like LBJ,JFK,Harry Truman, H.Hoover and many more.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Orville – you mean the capitalism that enabled you to purchase a computer and internet service, that kind of capitalism? Or did you purchase your computer from the state run computer store and internet from the state run internet provider? I’m usually for capitalism, but in your case I’m against it, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a computer much less type something on it.
And I haven’t seen any news stories where W is standing over a paper shredder with the Constitution in his hands.
There are many reasons for the current economic melt down, one significant factor is loaning money to people who have little means to pay it back and I don’t think George had much to do with that either. Reagan wasn’t cheering this on either from his grave.
Are you guys still drunk from yesterday?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:07 am
It’s hard to believe that Jimmy Carter didn’t make your list. What he did to the economy, the image of the Presidency and the CIA is unforgivable. He probably deserves to be in the top five.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
bucslim:
Come on man, playing apologist for Bush is beneath you. He and his ilk are in large part responsible for the current mess we’re in, if only for encouraging and even pushing a climate of unrestrained (and unmanaged and deregulated) greed. As for the constitutional shredding, you’re in deep denial if you can’t see it. An administration doesn’t have to actually ALTER the constitution in word and form in order to undermine its substance.
On the other hand…
Orville: Don’t be a twit. History has already begun its judgement of Ronald Reagan, and it’s positive. Admittedly, some of Reagan’s policies eventually left a bad taste in the mouth. And certainly he set into being a generation of rapacious assholes that now populate the Republican party. But it’s quite clear Reagan would have repudiated much of what came after him–and during his time as a leader, there was no one better for setting the country back on the path to improvement and optimism. You had to have been alive, and old enough to understand it, in the 1970s, to know what an awful miasma Reagan brought us out of.
The simple truth is you don’t always have to agree with a president’s overall policies; you just have to recognize his leadership qualities and measure his integrity. By these Reagan was a good president, and that’s not me saying that—it’s history (thus far).
By the same token, there’s no doubt that George Bush will be judged a failure–regardless of what you think of his policies (I was against them) he was quite simply a very bad leader utterly lacking in quality OR integrity.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Harry #219, your ignorance is appalling. You or your mentors, not Carter are the reason the economy was in such poor shape. It’s the fucking war stupid! It’s your goddamn fucking wars that screwed it then, and screwed it today. Then add the disastrous decisions under Reagan to destroy labor unions, dismantle the energy independence programs begun by Carter, and deregulation of our financial markets. Reagan made government the villian and ceded moral authority to international corporations. Bush merely followed through on the rightwing political agenda. The election in 1980 was actually an even bigger disaster for America than 2000.
The lobbying, fraud, bankruptcy, and endless war are what we are now reaping from a failed philosophy of greed that was sewn during the Gipper’s term. Now tell us again how he won the cold war righties.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Randall, Reagan will always be well liked by the people of a certain age and political ideology, but I don’t agree history will be kind to his administration. The treachery of Oliver North is what will be his ultimate legacy. Future, more evolved (and indebted) citizens will not get the warm fuzzies pondering the architects of the dismantling of our government and the rule of law in business.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Funny story- I come from a long line of Republicans, my dear grandmother being most hardcore and active in the party. She used to take me to a lot of campaign events, and loved to talk politics, so much so that as a little girl, I thought that Reagan was a relative of ours. I was about three years old when he was elected. Mammaw was always talking about him, and she loved him so much, I just thought he was part of our family. But he was very busy and that’s why he never visited us.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Randall – yeah you’re probably right. But I do get quite testy with folks who figure that everything that’s wrong now is his fault. I don’t believe that for a minute. He’s got shit on his hands about this current economic mess to be sure, deregulation has it’s limits.
He absolutely screwed the pooch on Katrina, and it showed our government to be a bunch of bumbling bureaucrat nincompoops. I’ve stated my opinion on the other stuff so I won’t rehash it here.
I’m jealous of your usage of the word miasma – defined as an unhealthy smell or vapor. Dare I say, you rock my world?
I’ll let you get back to your Obama shrine, pal. Probably time for chants and such.
(c’mon, I had to)
January 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Some fascinating points made here as well as some utterly ridiculous.
Some past presidents, such as Buchannan and his predecessors are consigned to the failure category after the fact because of what followed their terms of office. Interestingly, if the Civil War had been averted through a peaceful, negotiated end to slavery, Buchannan and his predecessors would merely be seen as average or somewhat below average rather than as failures.
Some presidents such as Jefferson are ranked on the high side on the strength of their entire careers. If that’s valid, Carter deserves a nudge upwards and Ford deserves to be taken down a few notches for their post-presidential careers. In reality, I’d rate Ford above Carter on their White House careers.
Some are judged retrospectively by changing social mores. Truman’s lot has improved due to his integrating the U.S. military, a decision widely condemed at the time. On the other hand, I’m making an educated guess that his decision to drop the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki will be judged harshly by future generations. The fact is, the second bomb was dropped just a few days after the first. If he had delayed a few more days, the Japanese almost certainly would have surrendered just the same, and Nagaski and its people would have been spared.
I personally believe that the most important aspect to consider — or at least the obvious starting point — is the *differential* between the situation they inherited from their predecessor and the situation that they hand off to their sucessor. With that in mind, I’m confident that Bill Clinton will rate somewhere above average by future historians and George W. Bush will rate somewhere below. I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
But much of the passionate discussion above of recent presidents suggests that a fair assessment can not be made until at least 25 years later when those passions cool.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
YogiBarrister – You or your mentors, not Carter are the reason the economy was in such poor shape.It’s the fucking war stupid!
Specifically, which war are you referring to? The Vietnam War, started by LBJ?
Yogi, your type of partisan, donkey-dung opinion is neither wanted not needed in this discussion. Let the grown-ups talk.
Nickelodeon has a forum, I believe. Why don’t you go interrupt their discussion on Sponge Bob Square-Pants versus Mickey Mouse and leave the rest of us alone to discuss grown up stuff?
January 21st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Loose Cannon, STFU douchebag, how dare you tell me what and where to post? Get off the ramparts fool, you lost! Your fellow travelers sold you out and surrendered already. You are right about one thing, LBJ screwed the pooch badly in Vietnam. He lied us into a war to make money for himself, and we know the reults.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Loose Cannon, you’re name is being mentioned in very hallowed tones over in the general discussion forum. I must say it is very nice to see you back commenting here.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
BTW Loose Cannon, Obama had a good first day in office. The new rules he laid down regarding government employees and lobbying are much needed. You are presenting yourself as an adult with a worldly perspective. As such, why do you embrace infants like Bush or the little punk who prevented the Secretary of State from attending the first national security meeting today, and disobey the grown-ups like Gore, Obama and Kerry. Your side is bereft of intelligence, grace, or ethics. I don’t believe Obama can unfuck the country, the damage is too severe, however the misery he is causing the rightwing douchebaggery in America makes him a hero in my book.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Scholar – Some fascinating points made here as well as some utterly ridiculous.
Your comments are among the best and most interesting comments I’ve read here so far. It’s obvious you’re a very educated and informed individual. Though I must respectfully disagree with you on Truman, and W.’s rank compared to Clinton.
My opinion is that after the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, all bets were off for Japan and all was fair. It clearly stated that if the Empire of Japan did not surrender, it faced “prompt and utter destruction”. Surely the Japanese weren’t entirely ignorant of the possibilities of the atomic bomb and it’s effects. My belief is that Japan would not have surrendered unless shown that they actually did face utter destruction and Nagasaki was needed to prove that the first atomic bomb wasn’t just luck or chance.
So far as Clinton vs. W.; It is my belief that W. will be rated the worst president of all time, but certainly not for the belief that Clinton left us daisy fields, but for his own lack of leadership on many fronts. The economy was already in recession when the Clinton term ended and the many opportunities that he failed to stop Bin Laden and Al Queada were precipitous of 9/11, the worst attack on American soil in our entire history.
Clinton was a peace-time President, who’s only job was to maintain that peace and enhance America’s economic good fortune, which I judge he failed at.
Likewise, W. was a war president, who let America’s good feelings after 9/11 slip away on entrenching us in yet another ‘nation-building’ effort that neither the nation we invaded, nor our allies in Northern Europe really appreciate. His actions in Afghanistan would have happen no matter who would have been president. Saying this, I still believe he led the nation better then his opponents from the Democrats would have.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
YogiBarrister – Loose Cannon, STFU douchebag, how dare you tell me what and where to post?
Ahhh, Yogi, ever the petulant child. I never told you where you could or couldn’t post, little boy. I merely requested that you remove yourself to a place you would feel more at home and on equal intellectual standing.
This ‘us versus them’ partisan stand you take is so 90’s. Get over it already. If you feel so vindicated by Obama’s win and W.’s unpopularity, why are you so angry?
Move on. Or, at the very least, inform yourself on the poor policies and planning of the Carter years to accept some blame for the increased ‘Misery’ index of high unemployment, high inflation, and slow economic growth, a combination that even W hadn’t reached.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
bucslim:
“yeah you’re probably right. But I do get quite testy with folks who figure that everything that’s wrong now is his fault.”
Well of course. It ISN’T all Bush’s fault. He had a lot of help. But it’s also the job of a president to lead, to set better examples–or, if he’s beset with too much opposition, to fight the good fight and lose. Bush did none of this. He didn’t lead, he set only bad examples, and he fought no good fights, lose or otherwise.
I’ve liked NONE of his policies. But had he at least been a decent, thoughtful, intelligent, forceful and positive leader, I’d grant him some respect. But he wasn’t. He was a disaster.
This is why I’ve many times said that I think he was a worse president than even Nixon. Nixon at least managed some competent policies (mostly in foreign policy) and it’s apparent that Nixon’s main flaw was his paranoia and insecurity. But for that, he may have been a great man. He certainly was smart enough. He quite simply rose to his level of incompetence–a kind of tragedy.
But Bush was no tragic figure—he was an incompetent from start to finish and was never even remotely suited for the position of the presidency. He possessed no leadership qualities whatsoever, and was simply an out of touch, insular, bigoted (not in terms of race, but in terms of ideas and intellect) bully.
“I’m jealous of your usage of the word miasma – defined as an unhealthy smell or vapor. Dare I say, you rock my world?”
I shall publish a daily “Randall Word Calendar.” Distributed freely to all, whether they want it or not.
“I’ll let you get back to your Obama shrine, pal. Probably time for chants and such.”
Yeah yeah yeah. Okay. Why not just admit he’s a fine man with a good brain and some decent ideas and a good take on reality, who will at least try to do his best? PLUS he’s our age—OUR generation has taken the stage, finally. ANd it’s a proud thing, to see how this changes things, racially, in the country–even if only in certain terms.
So why the mockery?
Now, I gotta get back to the temple. The candles are going out, and if we don’t keep ‘em lit, Biden turns into a pillar of Guinness Stout.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Loose Cannon:
“I still believe he (Bush) led the nation better then his opponents from the Democrats would have.”
On what, precisely, do you base this piece of moronic nonsense?
January 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Loose Cannon, Bush didn’t inherit a recession, that officially began in March of 2001. There was a budget surplus and the Dow was about 2500 points higher than when he left. You are correct about Clinton though. His biggest mistake, from a 2009 POV, was to kow-tow to the deregulators in congress. As far as not getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, he was dissauded because some Arab prince, a relative of one of Bush’s cronies would have also been killed.
You are also correct about the prospects of military action in Afghanistan being almost certain, regardless of who won in 2000. In fact, according ro Richard Clarke, if Gore had been elected, we would have gone in prior to 9/11. That sort of negates your case for GWB. The man betrayed our country, as did everybody who voted for him in 2004.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
bucslim – Loose Cannon, you’re name is being mentioned in very hallowed tones over in the general discussion forum. I must say it is very nice to see you back commenting here.
Thank you.
I haven’t read the general discussion forum, but I’ll take a stop in sometime, if I can find it. Thanks for the heads up.
I have a love/hate relationship to the Listverse comments section. I’ve received emails from many who think I was/am right on course, and then I have comments that are left on here that elude to my sexual orientation or the condition of my family/home-life.
I’d prefer to just discuss the subjects of the lists, but it seems that some people who disagree with me would like to prescribe that my reasoning comes from being molested as a child or how lonely I must be.
Eh, I guess you take the good with the bad, I suppose.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Loose Cannon, are you Bill Kristol? You have a similar style. Being pompous and always wrong is a terrible combination.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
YogiBarrister – Loose Cannon, Bush didn’t inherit a recession, that officially began in March of 2001.
Right. The recession began in March 2001. Just 43 days after W took office. A recession being defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
According to the National Bureau Of Economic Research, we’re not in a recession right now. Would you be so willing to blame Obama on March 1st for a recession???
Yogi, this is precisely why you are so way out of your league here and why I strongly suggest you look elsewhere to spout your partisan and skewed opinions. They are not real world observant nor do they take into account previous economic policies, except when it benefits your partisan views.
Just, move on. Seriously.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Yogibarrister:
“Reagan will always be well liked by the people of a certain age and political ideology,”
Well this is rather silly. Certainly, yes, Reagan will be a hero of some kind to the right wing, but I guarantee you that will fade in time as his memory wanes, and more is learned about how he would NOT have in fact agreed with much of what was held to be true by those who followed in his wake.
It isn’t what we who were there think about him so much–it’s the judgement that history will make of him as a leader. Was he effective? Did he lead well or poorly? Was he a major symbolic figure, or a cipher? And so on. History is already beginning to formulate a take on Reagan that says he WAS effective, that he did lead well, etc. His policies? Tell me how many polices we truly remember today, of any presidents of the far-gone past? A few, but mainly we remember their overall performance and effectiveness.
“but I don’t agree history will be kind to his administration.”
Well, we’ll see. I’d like to hear what you base this belief on, since the historians I’m seeing are almost consistently giving him high marks for his leadership and his position in the history of our country.
Understand me—I’m not defending his administration. I’m way past that. I have much more criticism for the Reagan years than positive statements. But we know that history, again, doesn’t judge merely the nuts and bolts policies of presidencies and periods of time—but also judges the WAY things are done, the leadership offered, and so on. By those criteria, Reagan is currently viewed as having done a good job, even if we view many of his policies as failures of one kind or another. But if you consider it, what we see as failures were mostly LONG TERM in nature. In the short term many of his policies were highly effective.
“The treachery of Oliver North is what will be his ultimate legacy.”
Oh please. That’s just nonsense. I agree the whole Iran/Contra thing was awful and criminal—but it’s only one aspect of the overall Reagan legacy. Iran/Contra was by no means in the same league as Watergate.
“Future, more evolved (and indebted) citizens will not get the warm fuzzies pondering the architects of the dismantling of our government and the rule of law in business.”
But I maintain, Yogi, that they will NOT primarily blame this on Reagan HIMSELF. They will blame it on REPUBLICAN and specifically CONSERVATIVE policies–over the period of the late 80s and 90s and during the recent Bush administration.
What you are suggesting is tantamount to blaming the failures of, say, the welfare system on FDR. FDR set much of the structure in place and in motion, which would later become our contemporary welfare system. But if that system later developed flaws and had some ill effects, does history blame FDR? No. Not a great example, I realize, but I trust you understand the point I’m making.
Reagan IS partly to blame for the ills that right wing policies have brought us. But MOST of the troubles from these policies began to percolate and worsen AFTER his time in office. So only time will tell how much of this will actually be laid at his feet–but in the short term, in regards to his leadership qualities and POSITIVE effects, history seems to be judging him somewhat kindly.
And with all my criticisms of his administration… I think this is somewhat fair of history.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Got ego Loose Cannon? You are a perfect ponder, that’s for sure. You have a vocabulary that shines like a supernova and the spirituality of a black hole. Your abilty to reason abstractly is that of a draught animal. You are an astronomical oxymoron times two.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Randall – this is just where you and I differ.
Yes, there are some supremely selfish, for me, things that he did that I like. Like the tax cut, he gave me back $1600 of my own money. In a very simplistic way, I like people who give me money. They are hard not to like. I know that your class war argument is coming, but I’m not rich and $1600 is nothing to sneeze at when you are as poor as I am.
He canceled 37 billion dollars in debt from some 27 African countries, launched an iniative that cut Malaria in half in 15 African countries and according to the BBC over a million Africans have HIV/AIDS medicine paid for by the Bush administration- to which Bob Geldof said he has saved millions of lives.
And like it or not, we haven’t had another terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
It hasn’t been all bad.
I completely understand that there is plenty to complain about, and I will begrudge some fine points. I’m not a sore loser and want to be supportive of the new administration. It’s just that I cannot stomach this baby talk of “Bush is bad waaaaah”
But I’ll never accuse you of that.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
i think some folks are having entirely too much fun and we should start charging for admission.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Randall – On what, precisely, do you base this piece of moronic nonsense?
Gore would have pushed for the Kyoto Treaty, and with a Democrat senate in 2002, must likely have gotten it. Even the most ‘green’ economists today admit it would have been an economic disaster.
Kerry would have immediately removed our troops from Iraq, which even Obama is now admitting, if not publicly at least policy-wise, would have been a foreign policy nightmare.
Either of these two as president would have made W. today look like Lincoln, comparatively. That’s not partisanship, that’s just fact.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Bucslim:
“Yes, there are some supremely selfish, for me, things that he did that I like. Like the tax cut, he gave me back $1600 of my own money. In a very simplistic way, I like people who give me money. They are hard not to like.”
Well sure, buc, and I understand–and no class war argument–I simply observe that yes, people DO *always* respond positively to being given money. Not that it was a form of bribery–I don’t believe that. But in a broad sense that gift of your own money back to you accomplished, perhaps, some short nicety in YOUR life… but in the big picture of the nation, it accomplished nothing.
“He canceled 37 billion dollars in debt from some 27 African countries, launched an iniative that cut Malaria in half in 15 African countries and according to the BBC over a million Africans have HIV/AIDS medicine paid for by the Bush administration- to which Bob Geldof said he has saved millions of lives.”
Granted. Again, I never said Bush was Snidely Whiplash, whose only function in life was to tie sweet Nell to the railroad tracks. But look at it—you’re hard pressed to come up with anything other than this example which occurred, as memory serves me, early in his administration. And for all the good done, it was offset by the misery and awfulness Bush propagated *otherwise* in foreign policy.
Every president does SOME good (god, we should hope so) but the question is, what percentage of that forms the overall of his administration? In Bush’s case, it ain’t much.
“And like it or not, we haven’t had another terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.”
To which I grant not ONE iota of credit to Bush. Surely, yes, SOME measures taken helped keep further attacks from happening–but ANY president would have taken those actions. But all the evidence says that A) the administration’s actions have been a mess, and have been at least as UNeffective as they’ve been effective… and B) OTHER actions taken by Bush and his administration have, if anything, made things MORE dangerous for our future. Not less.
“It hasn’t been all bad.”
No, just 85% of it. Or so.
“I completely understand that there is plenty to complain about, and I will begrudge some fine points. I’m not a sore loser and want to be supportive of the new administration. It’s just that I cannot stomach this baby talk of “Bush is bad waaaaah””
Well, I never employ baby talk. I say it like the man that I am. BUSH WAS BAD. VERY, VERY, VERY BAD.
Let’s just admit it and move on.
“But I’ll never accuse you of that.”
And thank you.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Randall, younger people and future historians are going to judge Reagan more harshly because they won’t care about the feel good nature of his presidency. They are going to judge him by the failure of unfettered corporatism in the 21st Century. Also there will be some damning information released in the coming years. Oliver North will be put back under the spotlight and it’s going to be a shock. I only know a little bit of the truth about him, and it’s so vile, it will most certainly be a downward drag on Reagan’s popularity.
Obama’s presidency will also be a tremendous influence on how Reagan is perceived in the future by today’s young people. The irony is that if Obama is successful, Reagan will fare better. If things continue to get worse, than a lot of bitter, unemployed people, some of them book writing historians, are going to take a much darker view of the events that led to our demise.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
And here, I’ll say something nice about Bush… he gave more positions, in his cabinet and high up in his administration, to people of color than any previous president. Good for him.
However, this is offset by the terrible job done in New Orleans… a primarily black city–and one wonders why his administration, so set on employing people of color in executive positions, failed so miserably to help the poor and stricken black residents of the Big Easy.
Bush himself? Not a racist. I don’t believe so. Some people around him, even high up? I think so. People lower down the food chain, in his administration? Surely.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Great, my comments are now in moderation. Let me know when it’s OK to post here again?
January 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Randall – And here, I’ll say something nice about Bush..
Good, maybe someday you’ll refute my belief that signing the Kyoto Treaty and immediately removing our troops from Iraq would have made us worse off than today.
Then again, pigs may fly, Yogi may mature, etc.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Loose Cannon:
Cute. How about you backup your silliness with facts? How WOULD signing the Kyoto treaty have made us worse off than we are today?
And who, praytell, other than some fringe elements, were calling for an IMMEDIATE and sudden withdrawal from Iraq? No one that I know. But a withdrawal on a timetable in a relatively prompt fashion? Perfectly reasonable. How would THAT have made us worse off, Loose?
GOING INTO Iraq IN THE FIRST PLACE did inestimable damage to our economy, our overseas prestige and image, NOT TO MENTION the damage it did to thousands of American soldiers and marines and thousands of Iraqi civilians. It was a COLOSSAL waste of resources and time, both of which should have been devoted to CRUSHING the Taliban and Al Qaeda where they were–in AFGHANISTAN. But instead Afghanistant was neglected.
It’s offensively absurd the way people try to defend Bush’s actions and decisions on this point. It’s been clear for a while–and yes there’s evidence to back it up–that Bush had decided to go into Iraq before 9/11 even happened–and never mind the illegality of said act alone—the fact that he did not modify this horrible plan of his and his neocon advisors, in light of 9/11–but instead barrelled right ahead of it, using 9/11 as an EXCUSE… speaks volumes about what kind of rotten, incompetent, disgustingly foolish man Bush is and was, as a leader and otherwise.
While the real propagators of 9/11 were left to regroup and reorganize–FREE of bother–in Afghanistan–Bush went on to pursue his own agenda in Iraq–which he felt was more important. And in the end? Nothing but a monumental waste.
Nice.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Loose Cannon, why are you concerned about the maturity level of a blogger on an obscure website, but didn’t concern yourself with Bush’s infantilism when you voted for him? Your priorities are way out of whack. Christ almighty, you even think the Kyoto Treaty was a bullet that we successfully dodged before Bush dropped a bomb on our economy.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Yogi:
Don’t you by now know what “in moderation” means? It means slow down, chew your food, put back that sixth slice of pie, don’t buy a huge SUV when you can get by just fine with a sedan, and turn off the TV after it’s been on so long it keeps your feet warm.
But seriously, it just means that the site moderators are ensuring that you’re not saying anything that’s libelous, fraudulent, obscene, or pediophilic in nature, which would be guaranteed to cost Jamie his green card—needed for future ventures to the Indian reservation outside of Seattle, where he buys cigarettes in bulk for illegal re-sale in New Zealand. This is the economic base for this website, which is run on contraband, racketeering, extortion and loansharking. The ads are just for show.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Randall, in that case I’ll repost my 2:04 comment, and expunge the part about Oliver North.
“Randall, younger people and future historians are going to judge Reagan more harshly because they won’t care about the feel good nature of his presidency. They are going to judge him by the failure of unfettered corporatism in the 21st Century. Also there will be some damning information released in the coming years. Oliver North … it will most certainly be a downward drag on Reagan’s popularity.
Obama’s presidency will also be a tremendous influence on how Reagan is perceived in the future by today’s young people. The irony is that if Obama is successful, Reagan will fare better. If things continue to get worse, than a lot of bitter, unemployed people, some of them book writing historians, are going to take a much darker view of the events that led to our demise.” YOGIBARRISTER
January 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
American troops in general… not just soldiers and Marines…
January 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Yogi – there are certain words that trip the moderation thingy. I believe it automatic. I got into moderation after I uttered a word that basically means to snicker and rhymes with wigger. That word, inoffensive on it’s own, but contained a potentially offensive word, sent me into moderation.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
God! What a terribly constructed comment of mine. Why did I repost that? It probably went into moderation because of the atrocious grammar.
What I was getting at is that one of the things Obama did today was change the protocal for FOIA requests. Bush blocked everything pertaining to Oliver North’s activities in the 80’s. Now some of his criminal behavior will be brought to light and will diminish Reagan’s legacy considerably.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
250. Randall -

you do this on purpose don’t you? test me. i go blithely along scanning comments for crap or imposters not really paying attention..cuz on any of the religious lists or lists that have been contaminated by religious psychos..its gotten so some things i just can not read for the umpteenth time, so its best not to..thus i scan. but no..you have to fuck it up and post for all the world to see what i thought was our just between us secret modius operandi. our means for the green. so Randy..may i call you Randy?
fuck off.
dude..this comment warped my brain a little. it hurts to think. don’t make me. please.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
and can we please stop using the ‘m’ word? how many times do i have to go over this? the filters automatically kick a comment into moderation…and yes, it could be parts of a word or even a number. i’m sorry but its that or be flooded w/ a buncha crap. frankly..it really does not happen as frequently as some people seem to bitch about in comments either. if the comment is legit..it’ll get released.
whenever one of us wanders by…
i know unbelievable as it seems but i have a life beyond LV. i strongly suspect J and even Mom does too.
remember ..patience is a virtue.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
What “m” word?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:31 pm
257. astraya -
why, did you not read the comment or was your mind somewhere else?
moderation.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
if anyone still questions lincoln they should read the book “Team of Rivals”. It really opens up his presidency in a whole different light. i questioned his political actions bu after reading this i completely changed my views. read it, its a very good book
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 am
Can we say it in moderation?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 am
260. astraya -
in LV commenting, as in life, moderation is key
January 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
We are missing one man in action…..Where is George W Bush?
February 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Education and high tech were lacking in the 19th C. Maybe that’s why so many voters tripped over poor choices then. The 21st C. is loaded w/ tech but apparently not education. 2000 was a bad time to have elected the worst prexy ever… but, millionaires and morons managed… and repeated their stupidity in 04. FDR couldn’t – and Barak has little prospect of undoing the damage done all but the richest after the last Republican congressional monopoly.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I think the worst are 1. Buchanan, 2. Harding, 3. Pierce,
4. Andrew Johnson, 5. Grant, 6. William Harrison, 7. Tyler,
8. Nixon, 9. Garfield, 10. Lyndon B. Johnson
February 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
sorry to be blunt ignorant or anything else, and dont tear me open for this but bush?
February 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I change now its harding, ajohnson, pierce, buchanan, reagan, tyler, william harrison, garfield, lbj, fillmore
March 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Since the Mexican War was mentioned, it is actually strongly similar to the Iraq war. Both involved America facing a guerrila force. Now compared the eefficiency of Iraq to it, the fact that it makes the news when a soldier is killed, one soldier, that itself shows how sucessful we were, since the Iraq War is over and it is infact a military police occupation at this point. Just wanted to clarify that.
Also, Bush can not be one this since he would be mainly rated on opinion based on the liberal media, which of course makes him look retarded. They never mention that in his military years, he flew the most technical and elite plains, which were extremely complicated to fly, and that his scoring on military exams were some of the highest (higher than for example Kerry). Yes he has made mistakes, but they are blown out of proportion. Just as Ryan said, looking back at history presidents were much worse, in my opinion Buchanan is in fact the worse but people can bring up good points to have the worse president different people.
If you want to say Bush is bad do to the economy, it began mainly to the housing bubble caused by democratic programs that forced banks to loan to unreliable people. Also the economy did not fail until the democratic congress took it over for a bit, just wanted to add that.
And the Kyoto treaty, you blaim Bush, when nobody in the senate and a handful in the House of Reps voted for it. Countries that went through with it actually had worse economies quickly after it. The best way to solve the energy issue is to drill our own oil while finding other sources, such as nuclear.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Hi, I’m a Chinese Jew. Anyways, I just can’t !@#$ing dam believe that Warren Harding was picked as the worst of the 10 worst presidents. This is just – This is just un-!@#$ing damn believable that they would pick Warren Harding as the worst over Bush! I apologize for my foul language everybody.
It’s just that I’m a little bit surprised.
I dont like Christianity. Too many ppl worshipping the wrong religion. Everyone have a good knights- I mean night’s, rest. DON”T EAT TOO MUCH!
PS:KKK must go away! I’m sick of you guys bein so anti-Semitic!
March 9th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“As an English man reading this list i am bemused as to why the Retarded Twit you guys now call President is absent! Clinton Rocks bye the way!
Reagan was stupid, but at least he knew it…
Bush has the ordacito think he’s smart! I now feel hypocritical as every Priminister sice Maggie has been a complete numpty also.”
This guy is a complete idiot. What makes you think that anyone cares what a brain dead englishman thinks? Your country rewards terrorists. You government allowed the manic in Iran to give and anti-christain message on christmas, and you let muslims give pro-hamas rallies every day. Bottom line is that you and all of your countryman are pathetic, and I am ashamed to say that my ancestors came from England. If Churchill knew what you had become, he would role over in his grave. Also, Carter needs to be on this list.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:26 am
I think you may want to listen to some ‘brain dead englishmen’, and may want to do it once in a way, because thats stereotyping, we are NOT all like that. Apologies for the off topic sbject but i wanted to point that out.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
My personal list is the following:
12.) Zachary Taylor
11.) Jimmy Carter
10.) Richard Nixon
9.) Herbert Hoover
8.) Ulysses S. Grant
7.) William H. Harrison
6.) John Tyler
5.) Warren G. Harding
4.) Millard Fillmore
3.) Franklin Pierce
2.) Andrew Johnson
1.) James Buchanan
March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
10 Best in My Opinion: This is Non-Partisan.
1.) George Washington
2.) Abraham Lincoln
3.) Thomas Jefferson
4.) Ronald Reagan
5.) Theodore Roosevelt
6.) Franklin D. Roosevelt
7.) Harry S. Truman
8.) Dwight D. Eisenhower
9.) James K. Polk
10.) Andrew Jackson
Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be to promising of a President. His solutions are old, failed keynesian economic policy that failed under Hoover, FDR, LBJ, etc…he denies scientific facts like adult stem cell research getting results, yet funds embryonic, which show and continue to show no results, wants to spend more and more money and has doubled the debt the took Bush 8 years to achieve in the first 50 days. He is partisan, narrow minded, doesn’t understand that tax cuts for evrybody, poor, rich, middleclass is the way to go, he has hired tax cheats and crooks to be in his administration, and he still doesn’t get the fact that his friends at the Fed are the root cause for the economic disaster, the greatest since Jimmy Carter!
March 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Where’s Dub?
March 26th, 2009 at 3:48 am
Is it too early to add Obama yet? (;
April 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
hey Jack11, Clinton wasn’t impeached for the affair, but for perjury.
Also, I believe that Bush did stop some bad things in Iraq, but he was unfortuante enough to have both 9-11 and Katrina in his terms.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I don’t think Clinton should be in the list, for being “fisocally irresposibal” he gave us a huge surplus of money.
Bush I do believe should go down as one of the worst presidents. He was just Dick Cheny’s meet puppet. A good man, not a good president.
My top 5 are
2)Lincon
3) Jefferson
4) FDR
5)Rosevelt
May 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Forgot #1 is washington
May 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Really surprised to not see John Quincy Adams on this list, my history teachers always considered him the “worst.”
May 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
George W Bush is by far the worst President in US History!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
This is Hilarious to me, that presidents are ranked as “bad” because of their scandals, when in some people’s eyes, Kennedy, who actually got a prostitute on the night of his victory, and was involved in various affairs, is the greatest thing in the world.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Coolidge? not the best, but def. not the worst. Nixon? if u look past watergate, he was a good president. Started detente era. Brought troops out of Vietnam. Improved relations with China. Taylor? why, cuz when he died he let Fillmore come in to office? y remove Henry Harrison then? Grant maybe 10 worst but 5 worst I don’t think so. A. Johnson was impeached for being nice to the south, so I wouldn’t put him here. Harding was bad but the #1 worst? My list would be very different, prob. Jackson, Dubya, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Tyler, Jefferson, Van Buren, Hoover and Grant.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Torgano:where did Lincoln and Bush 1 come from?!?!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Loosecannon:LBJ didn’t get us involed in Nam. Ike got us involved in it. JFK and LBJ only escalated our involvement in it. LBJ was a tough one, yes he escalated Vietnam, but he also finally did the right thing for blacks. I decided to see other people’s thougts by looking at some other stuff, and I couldn’t find 1 ranking that didn’t have LBJ in the top 20, including the one this list is based from. And I should have put Carter on my list.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
avi – Loosecannon:LBJ didn’t get us involed in Nam. Ike got us involved in it. JFK and LBJ only escalated our involvement in it. LBJ was a tough one, yes he escalated Vietnam, but he also finally did the right thing for blacks.
Every once and awhile, the sheer ignorance of the common people is illuminated in all it’s glory, and you, AVI, have illuminated it.
Have you never heard of the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident”? Are you really this ignorant of history and the events that lead to the war in Vietnam?
I’ll wait while you look it up on Wikipedia……
Still waiting…..
Geez, do you really read this slow?…
Ok, now, what you found out was that it was A) made up and B) it was planned months in advance.
So, yes, LBJ got us hip deep in Vietnam, while IKE and JFK were merely sending “advisers”, who numbered in the thousands, instead of the hundreds of thousands that LBJ eventually sent.
While LBJ eventually did the right thing, with the help of a majority of republicans in Congress, to overcome the Democrat filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he also ensured millions of blacks, generation upon generation, would be addicted to his welfare programs through his “Great Society” initiative. (Do I need to wait while you look that up?)
So successful was the brainwashing from the left that even while one of their own was authorizing the most successful overhaul of government waste in history 30 years later, many of them were resigning from their posts rather then take part in it.
But, hey, keep pushing that line about IKE and how LBJ was a hero to blacks and all.
Let me guess… You’re a teacher, right? You teach this garbage to our youth, don’t you? You haven’t the faintest clue, but you most likely teach it to our children, huh?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Loosecannon:OK OK fine. And no, I’m not a teacher. LBJ deserves a place.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I created this 2 question survey.
http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=r0j0rfdj6655kiu605947
all it asks is who you think is the best and worst president.
Please take the time to answer it, thanks.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I would take President Coolidge off this list of 10 worst and likely place him as the #10 best. President Grant does probably deserve to be on the list, but more towards the top. It would have been fitting to say, “great general, bad President.” I’m glad to see that these historians rightfully ranked President Grover Cleveland in the top 10 as he is one of the most under-rated Presidents. I would also urge them to re-consider President Martin Van Buren. I would strongly argue that this under-rated President belongs in the list of 10 greatest Presidents alongside Jackson. I would likely demote the President Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer from Georgia to this negative list. He did some good things regarding certain basic, yet critical de-regulation of the banking industry, but his positives are quickly overshadowed by his colossal failures. Of which, we see the consequences in the coming of a nuclear Iran.
I was a little dismayed to not see any talk of President Nixon’s (tricky Dick) domestic policy. The article simply critiqued him on his corruption and how he disgraced the Oval Office. If that is their main justification then why isn’t Bill Clinton just above him? On the domestic side, Nixon sharply grew the federal government creating unaccountable bureaucracies, only balanced the budget once, completely took us off the gold standard (which is the root cause to most of our extreme financial irresponsibility) and committed the gravest of all economic sins, price (and wage) controls. He was denounced by every economist for his insistence of price controls shortly before the his 1972 re-election campaign. A patriot would have done the right thing by doing nothing and took the heat, but he was a politicians that had to be seen doing something for political gain, even if that something he was doing was actually destructive. It was, we paid its price. He declared “we are all Keynesian’s now.” To this classical liberal (economic philosophy), those are fighting words. People like Nixon and Eisenhower were the epitome of what was wrong with the Republican party before Reagan came along. We thrive best off a vibrant 2 party system, not a 1.5 party system.
President Harding certainly does not deserve to be the worst President. Credible historians agree that Buchanan was the worst president. Letting the country slip into Civil War can give you the title of “The Worst President”.
I’d place President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the list of 10 worst Presidents. Ideally, I’d like to give him two rankings because he served an unprecedented number of years and served under two extremely pressing times (The Great Depression and WWII). From March 4, 1933-December 7, 1941 would be the first rating and December 8, 1941-April 12, 1945 (death) would be his second. His first 8 years in office were a huge failure in the sense that he failed to get us out of the Great Depression. I would likely place his handling of the war in the top 10 list, and while I won’t getting into any minor disagreements his handling of WWII, I will jump on him for his handling of policy at home. We cannot forgot that even during the war, he is responsible for the unlawful and unconstitutional Japanese internment camps. Even his wife begged him not to do it. It went to the Supreme Court which wrongfully ruled in his favor, 6-3. By then, he had packed the court. 8 of the 9 Justices were his appointees. The only Justice that wasn’t appointed by him (Hoover appointee) voted against internment camps. It is also hard to sweep under the rug his blissful ignorance of racism in the South when, while President, he lived in Warm Springs, Georgia. He was no economist, no civil rights crusader, but only a charismatic politician that knew polemics was not the way to keep the south, the solid democrat south. One of many reasons the US got lifted of the Great Depression because of the war was because the federal government and its contracts guaranteed business profits to the producers of war material. “Dr. Win-the War” was better on domestic policy than “Dr. New Deal”. FDR was also wrong for his price and wage controls, but they could have been worse as we would later see 30 years down the road.
President Hoover along with President Franklin Roosevelt belong on this list due to his poor handling of the Great Depression. While the majority of the blame for getting us into the Great Depression lies in the hands of a few extremely inept men in the Federal Reserve (who are responsible for the contraction in the money supply – See “The Great Contraction: 1929-1933″ by Milton Friedman), Hoover can hold plenty of blame. Contrary to what many history books want you to think, Hoover was a government activist, not a laissez-faire libertarian. To sum it up, he drastically raised taxes (from 25% – 63%) and signed in a major protectionist bill (Hawley-Smoot) imposing tariffs which had world-wide reverberating effects resulting in trade wars. Economists denounced this bill and urged the Congress to not pass it. After the stock market crashed in October of 1929, the unemployment steadily rose to 9%, but stayed in the single digits. It dropped down to 6.3% in June of 1930. The recession was getting better, but the government decided to take action which helped turn our recession into The Great Depression. FDR came to office and raise taxes even more, made it a crime to own gold, impeded on the rights of businesses, attempted to pack the Supreme Court, and created endless social programs that would turn out to be irreversible and an unprecedented suppression of economic freedom. There is no excuse once so ever, that can justify the economic downturn being dragged out until America’s emergence into WWII. Thinking historians and economists should have the will power to look past the soothing charm and charisma of FDR to examine the facts. FDR and Hoover were economic failures and should not be vindicated by history. Hold them up as an example of what not to do and what not to be deceived by.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Bush Should be in the top 5, If not THE Worst president we have ever had!
July 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@bucslim (1): Oh…and W. was sooooo much better. Time will tell you.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Putting Lincoln in your 10 worst list automatically means your opinions are null and void because you pretty much know nothing at all. Trying to be edgy by putting him in there sweet…
July 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
It is amazing how much of an effect the leftist media can have. Bush will be judged far better in 20 years when his historic impact outweighs the mindless liberal bantering that goes on…yuck
July 19th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
@Jay (291): Leftist media? Have you read that book about how fair and just Soviet Russia was to journalists. It’s an interesting read, especially seeing as it doesn’t exist.
What makes you think that the “Left” have anything to do with the media? Not to mention, what makes you think the US even has a “Left” per se?
July 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I don’t know Mark, maybe it’s because I live there and watch the news every day. Maybe it’s because our president just took control of a car company. Maybe it’s because we’re about to try and pass a national healthcare plan. Maybe it’s because the New York times attacks anyone on the right while many on the left get a free pass. Maybe it was the inordinate amount of coverage Obama gets while McCain gets significantly less.
Dr. Jay
Solving all of your liberal conundrums before dinner
August 12th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The 10 worst, starting with the worst
(1) Barack Obama
(2) Franklin Roosevelt
(3) jimmy Carter
(4) Bill Clinton
(5) John Kennedy
(6) Harry Truman
(7) Lyndon Johnson
(8) Abraham lincoln
(9) Thomas jefferson
(10) John Adaams
August 20th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I made my own list. The results were…..
10. Warren G. Harding
9. Lyndon Baines Johnson
8. Zachary Taylor
7. Richard M. Nixon
6. Millard Fillmore
5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Herbert Hoover
3. Woodrow Wilson
2. Andrew Johnson
1. James Buchanan
Dishonorable Mentions: William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, and Jimmy Carter
There are two video links below to my detailed explanation of why I picked these men as the 10 worst Presidents of American history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5Su0URowM&feature=channel_page
September 12th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
JIMMY CARTER should be numbers 1 through 10.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Obama talked to his top general in Afghanistan once in 70 days, and yet decided to make a bid for the Olympics in Copenhagen. No, it’s not too early for Obama as one of the worst. His cronies haven’t been fully investigated and he flipped off Eastern Europe. Neight Bush or Nixon was so blatantly incompetent; Obama is a self-important, spineless cad.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I personally think that Hoover should be on this list. He was lucky that FDR saved his ass.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Dave Surls, I can’t help but comment on your whole comparison between Bush and FDR. You see you left a few details about Bush. For one thing, he wasn’t in office for only a few months. If you do the oh so simple math you will know that he was inagurated in January and the attack was on that fateful day in September. If you count the months in between, he was in office for EIGHT MONTHS. And how di he spend it, why mostly GOLFING of course. Now lets take a look on the United States past, this whole war was soon to happen, lets face it, the Middle East was never exactly our best buddy. We’ve had history with them that goes back to the time we decided to have a forgin oil dependency on them. The rest was literally a ticking time bomb. When it comes to FDR however, as soon as he was inagurated, he had already started writing up bills and setting up programs to get our country out of the darkness of the depression. His best intrest was in the people who elected him president, and he delivered. Tell me what has Bush done scince our close call in 2008 to get us out of this? Well, thats just what puzzles me, it seems like bush was too busy PLAYING GOLF AND HUNTING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT to really put us US citizens in his best interest like he was elected TWICE to do. Whatever FDR did, he did it for the country he agreed under oath to serve, not to just make him look like a good guy.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
RachelH – You are right, FDR tried to get us out of the Great Depression. But he failed and that is what matters. In fact, as I briefly go over in my video above, FDR prolonged the Great Depression by creating investor uncertainly. When people don’t know what the government is going to do next, they hold onto their money. Because of FDR’s government intervention, it took us until the early/mid 40’s to get out of the Depression, and not without deep scars.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I hope you realize that this Top 10 List holds no merit.
It is based off of 12 DIFFERENT surveys, all the way from 1948 to current, which means there is NO consistent standard on judging these presidents.
Here is my opinion of the 10 worst presidents:
1. James Buchanan
2. Woodrow Wilson
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. Andrew Johnson
5. Franklin Pierce
6. Millard Fillmore
7. Herbert Hoover
8. Ulysses Grant
9. Warren Harding
10. Rutherford Hayes
Comment if you agree or disagree.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@Jim (301):
Jim, Your list of the worst President is pretty good. I certainly wouldn’t rank LBJ that far down and I think you are unfairly harsh on Harding, but overall, good. Far better than most. Check out my list above and feel free to comment on it and the video’s that accompany it.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Just to clarify, I did not intend to rank them in a specific numerical order. That would be impossible to do because each president faced different challenges. I ranked them generally, none intended to be higher or lower than the others.
I saw your video and I am glad we both agree that LBJohnson and Wilson are severely overrated by historians.
But I personally believe that Nixon and FDR should be far from the bottom 10.
Nixon was one of the most intelligent and politically skilled leaders to enter the office of president. His surprise visit to China was unprecedented. Not only did it open up trade which strengthened our economy in the long run, but it gave a major advantage to us in the Cold War. Also, his pro-environmental policies are a bonus.
Based on the content of your Youtube channel, I assume you are libertarian and dislike Nixon because of his economic policies. But he is not to blame for the inflation problems. Lyndon Johnson is entirely. Imagine how much money the Federal Reserve had to pump to fund the Vietnam War. And even if we consider Watergate, during those times it is preferable to have Nixon elected illegally than a damn fool who doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near the bottom either. While most presidents basically sat at their desk the whole term facing almost no challenges and never having to make any polarizing decisions, Roosevelt had a very difficult presidency and handled it well.
The New Deal did not deepen the depression. The depression was made irreversible solely because of the Hoover Administation: starting trade wars, revenue act of 1932 which DOUBLED taxes, Federal Reserve’s inactivity as Milton Friedman said, and etc. But the New Deal made major reforms which prevented another depression from ever happening again in our history. Its programs have industrialized the south and they contribute to the overall wealth and economy of our nation.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Andrew Jackson passing the bill to close down the Bank of the U.S. led to a small national depression. I think it was call the Panic of something or other but it was a bad deal,and Van Buren took the blame for it.