Poll: Who has been the WORST President in United States History?

[Playboypenguin]

I can't honestly say either that Reagan was the absolute worst. But, I would agree completely with you that he did set the stage for those, as you pointed out. Our current mess as a nation can trace the roots of much of our major problems right back to the Reagan administration. I voted Reagan as the worst with whom I am most acquainted with and affected by.

You have me there...I can't argue with that.

 

[gretske]

I voted Reagan as the worst with whom I am most acquainted with and affected by.

Geez, the guy wins WWIII without a single shot being fired, and you think he was a bad president?

You guys really should read Reagan's diary, unless you are afraid of the truth. He was an incredible man, not a doddering old idiot, as the biased left wing press portrayed him. He was focused, aware, strategic and a creative thinker. It is not ”Reagan's book,“ the diary is a contemporaneous record of his thinking, for those that can handle the truth.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I'd have to say Reaganomics is still showing its lasting negative effects 20 years after he was out of office.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economy began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. ...The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

And what about the rise of the American investor class since the early 1980s?

http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/12/03/2glass.t.php?page=1

[From "The Rise of the Investor Class: How far can it go?", 3 Dec 1999, written by James K. Glassman]

Never before has the economy gone 17 years with only a shallow recession. The increase in gross domestic product has been steady, at about 4 percent, for the past three years, and inflation has averaged only a percentage point or two (depending on how you measure it).

During this 17-year boom [which from 1999 would place the start at 1982], the U.S. economy has created 38 million net new jobs, or about 200,000 jobs a month — or a new General Motors workforce every quarter.

The number of households owning mutual funds has risen from 4.6 million in 1980 to 48.4 million today. And the number of self-directed 401(k) retirement accounts has quintupled since 1984.

If these are negative effects, then you can keep sending them my way.

 

[nate45]

Of all the Presidents who were completely horrendous like FDR, Lincoln and Wilson, Reagan isn't even close to being that bad, in fact he was pretty great. I'd take him over Osama and McLame any day.

 

[Rangefinder]

Geez, the guy wins WWIII without a single shot being fired, and you think he was a bad president?

He didn't win WWIII, there was never a war in the first place--just a decades-long stare-down between the two biggest kids on the block, and kept in check by the idea of mutually-assured destruction. A smaller scale of what he and his administration did to the country's economy, national debt, etc would be along the lines of Enron, except his administration's "executives" are STILL collecting their bonuses.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Geez, the guy wins WWIII without a single shot being fired, and you think he was a bad president?

You guys really should read Reagan's diary, unless you are afraid of the truth. He was an incredible man, not a doddering old idiot, as the biased left wing press portrayed him. He was focused, aware, strategic and a creative thinker. It is not ”Reagan's book,“ the diary is a contemporaneous record of his thinking, for those that can handle the truth.

That should be read for it's own reasons, but a really good book to read is "The President, The Pope, and The Prime Minister" by John O'Sullivan.

It details the specific actions of Reagan, Pope John Paul, and Margaret Thatcher in toppling the Soviet Union. It places specific focus on Poland and the Solidarity Movement.

Interesting to note that the Russians were poised to re-invade Poland and "restore order" by getting rid of Solidarity, but never did because the economic sanctions Reagan threatened them with would've been crippling all out of proportion to whatever gains they got from crushing Solidarity.

Really, the Russian units were right there on the border ready to go in. They never did. Once Poland broke from the fold, the rest of the Warsaw Pact followed suit. It was all down hill from there.

Reagan's adversarial "victory, not detente" approach to the Soviet Union was easily the main ingredient of toppling the last great evil of the 20th Century.

The worst president? FDR can be given credit for taking out Hitler, but Reagan must be given credit for taking out the Soviets. Carter could never have done that. Or Mondale. Or Dukakis.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Never a war in the first place?

So the Soviet Union wasn't involved in any way with trying to take over the entire Korean penninsula in the early 1950s? It wasn't involved with communist takeover of Vietnam?

It had nothing to do with communist expansion and subversion of various African and Asian countries?

It didn't invade Afghanistan? Overrun basically all of Eastern Europe and turn them into vassal puppet states garrisoned with unwelcome Soviet tank divisions?

That very much was a war. A war with battles all over the planet. A war that by scholarly estimation resulted in millions of people dead by communist expansion. A struggle for what the future of humanity was going to look like. A brilliant city on a hill, or the dull gray brick walls of an Orwell novel.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

there will always be wars all over the planet but our founding fathers never intended us to get inolved in every single one of them.

America built the nazi machine into what it was with our banks and industrialists investing in hitler long before the war, and our government ignoring the fact that the nazis were building thier war machine far beyond what treaty allowed.

THe US forced Japan into a corner so as to be sure they would attack us,
and the administration knew that Japan was planning an attack on the US but let it happen in order to force us into the war. There have been alot of great books documenting this very clearly,(or just watch, Tora! Tora! Tora!)

After the war we bailed out the commies by relieving the almost broke russian nation, instead of allowing it to burn itself out, as communisim had completely failed.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

I didn't even vote in this poll because no one comes close to what F.D.R. did as far as long term, irreversible destruction of the constitution. Lincoln's damage was reversible.

I dont know, i cant ever see State Government ever being reinstated again. We are stuck with a cycle of kings every few years

 

[LanceOregon]

America built the nazi machine into what it was with our banks and industrialists investing in hitler long before the war, and our government ignoring the fact that the nazis were building thier war machine far beyond what treaty allowed.

THe US forced Japan into a corner so as to be sure they would attack us, and the administration knew that Japan was planning an attack on the US but let it happen in order to force us into the war. There have been alot of great books documenting this very clearly,(or just watch, Tora! Tora! Tora!)

What utter hypocrisy you have here in your criticism of FDR's administration. First you complain that we allowed trade with Germany, and that it helped them prepare for war.

Then, you have the exact opposite complaint with the US government regarding Japan, saying that we somehow forced them into declaring war on us by imposing trade sanctions because of their aggressive and ruthless war of conquest they were waging against China.

Sorry, but you cannot have it BOTH ways here.

You seem to be arguing that nothing should have been done about Japan's invasion of China, despite the well documented inhuman depravity that was taking place. Yet you wanted action taken against Germany. That's being totally inconsistent.

.

 

[Rangefinder]

Never a war in the first place?

So lets break it down a little.

Overrun basically all of Eastern Europe and turn them into vassal puppet states garrisoned with unwelcome Soviet tank divisions?

Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin (AKA "The Big Three") negotiations and postwar planning in February of 1945 at Yalta set the stage for this "overrun". As part of the negotiations, Stalin requested to maintain control of "Soviet-friendly states" surrounding its borders to act as a buffer in the interest of national security---which was granted within the agreement. So, that overrun, as you termed it, was asked for, and given--not an act of Soviet aggression or hostilities. If you'll remember, it was the Soviet Union who pushed the Germans back OUT of those areas after Hitler pushed all the way to Stalingrad, already sacking and controling all of those areas in the process. The Soviet Union simplt took the areas back from Nazi Germany, and elected to hold them rather than let them fall again and repeat what the Nazis almost accomplished by pushing so far as they did. I'll note here that the lasting effects of Soviet occupation in these areas is an entirely different matter. Unless you've been there personally, don't start that argument---I HAVE been there, and my wife is from there (Romania).

It had nothing to do with communist expansion and subversion of various African and Asian countries?

This was a result of Soviet "Expansionism" versus American "Containment" policy, and actually bagan in Greece. I'll also mention that it was in part due to fears that Soviet presence in the Eastern Medditeranean and Middle East was not good for American OIL INTERESTS in Turkey and Iran. Sound Familiar? Same goes for Afghanistan--too close to our oil interests.

So the Soviet Union wasn't involved in any way with trying to take over the entire Korean penninsula in the early 1950s? It wasn't involved with communist takeover of Vietnam?

Korea was a result of both US and Soviet occupation post-war Pacific WW2. We and the aggreed to occupy the territory jointly--the North recieving support from the Soviet Union, South Korea recieving support from the US, and the division line being the 38th parallel. The Korean war was the result of Civil War breaking out at that parallel, and the US protecting its interests under Truman. It escalated from there. The Soviet occupation in North Korea was a mutual agreement, not invasion or expansion.

Vietnam was also NOT the result of Soviet invasion, but of gained power of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh--the Communist Nationalist group who let Vietnamese resistance of Japanese forces during WW2. Prior to, Vietnam was part of a French colony since the late 19th century. Ho declaired independance from France, asked for US support, and we supported the French instead. The Soviet Union chose to support the Vietnamese Independance Movement. It flared Cold War sentiment because of Communist support on the side the US chose to overlook. Again, the Soviet Union did NOT invade. We did.

That very much was a war

Where are you getting your history from????? The Cold War was a decades-long political chess match-----NOT a War.

 

[gretske]

So, that overrun, as you termed it, was asked for, and given--not an act of Soviet aggression or hostilities.

Except that Stalin threatened a war against the Allies in Eastern Europe if the UK and the US did not comply. Patton and others, wanted to take out Stalin at the end of the war, but Truman said, ”no.“

If you deny post-WWII Soviet expansion and aggression in the aftermath of WWII, then you should vote for Obama. He will carry on the proud liberal tradition of blaming America first.

As he said in Germany:

I know my country has not perfected itself. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America.

Despicable! And, he wants to be the president of an imperfect nation? No wonder the America-hating Europeans love him!

 

[thallub]

Had FDR listened, and done what Winston suggested and headed the Nazi's off at the Polish pass, WWII might have been avoided, or minimized. Over 50 million died in that war.

In 1939 the congress was in no mood to get involved in a Eurpoean war. The US Army was very small and very poorly equipped.

 

[Rangefinder]

Except that Stalin threatened a war against the Allies in Eastern Europe if the UK and the US did not comply. Patton and others, wanted to take out Stalin at the end of the war, but Truman said, ”no.“

Not quite. The Soviet Union had been a primary target and had been invaded in both WW1 and WW2. Stalin moved to prevent this from occuring again, thus insisting on the security buffer made up of the satellite states surrounding its borders, which it already occupied as it drove back Nazi forces. Both Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to recognize those areas as the Soviet Unions territorial states at the Yalta Conference.

Truman took the hard stance against the Soviet Union after he assumed the presidency based on the idea it would result in the same situation as the Brittish appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Truman set the stage for the Cold War during the Potsdam Conference (after a successful atomic detonation), and more or less told the Soviet Union where they could shove it, flushing any and all postwar negotiations and alliances with the Soviet Union into the toilet.

 

[SIGSHR]

In my lifetime, LBJ. I read an article in which one historian said "he pushed
government way beyond its limits." He committed the military to a major conflict with any clear cut directions or strategy, he let McNamara play the
generalissimo and tried to reduce the generals and admirals to high paid NCOs-much they way Hitler did. The "War on Poverty" did far more to expand the welfare state than the New Deal ever did and allowed the growth of so many of the social pathologies-the high rate of illegtimacy, e.g.-than the New Deal ever did. Second Place, Jimmy Carter, for general ineptness. What was he said after the USSR invaded Afghanistan-he realized you couldn't trust the Soviets? Duhh! Third Place, Bill Clinton-general style and character
flaws.

 

[Buzzcook]

Little Boots, the current resident is without doubt the worst president in history by any reasonable measure.
Under his watch America went from being a beacon of freedom to being a practitioner of torture and of aggressive illegal war.

I had thought no one could make Reagan look good. The shrub unpleasantly surprised me.

 

[gretske]

Buzzcook, unfortuately you don't get to make this judgment. Only history will be able to make it, based on the outcome of his actions and policies.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Where are you getting your history from????? The Cold War was a decades-long political chess match-----NOT a War.

Just because the Cold War's tactics didn't fall along the same line as how WWI was carried out doesn't necessarily disqualify the Cold War as being a war. There were several casualties noted that weren't in a frontline...

THe US forced Japan into a corner so as to be sure they would attack us,
and the administration knew that Japan was planning an attack on the US but let it happen in order to force us into the war. There have been alot of great books documenting this very clearly,(or just watch, Tora! Tora! Tora!)

So, you're believing what a movie tells you? How in the world did the US have the power to back Japan into a corner as such to have no choice but to attack us? You really think the govt. LET Japan attack us giving the Pearl Harbor incident so we have an EXCUSE to go to war? Incredible....

 

[Bruxley]

The trend is that at the end of a two term President's second term will have him at or near the top of such polls. The reasons are that all of that Presidents mistakes are fresh in our minds and his successes are trumped by them and secondly that the lack of personal exposure to past Presidents makes their Presidencies less impactive/relevant to people, especially younger people.

It should be noted how dominant Jimmy Carter is in light of his leaving office almost 30 years ago. His presidency was a very miserable time for the country and the poll reflects that. For those that are too young to remember that time you really should Google his campaign and Presidency to find out just why his leadership caused such trauma that even now the kindly and congenial man's presidency is poorly remembered. Here is a starting point that seems to lack bias but be sure to check other sources as well.

As PBP pointed out:

I think Carter is a inspirational man, a motivational teacher, an amazing diplomat, compassionate, rational, and intelligent...but he was just not much of a leader. He is the kind of man all men should strive to be but he was lacking the desire to be followed that is needed to be President. He was always more interested in finding the good in everyone than he was in doing the difficult things a leader has to do.

All true. I agree with that.

Now after looking into what Carter ran on to become President, his actions as President, and the consequences and looking at today, it is almost eerie the parallels with Barrack Obama, except Carter was far more experienced. I won't point out the similarities as that would be leading and this is something that needs to be observed on one's own. But knowing what we know now about what the consequences of these policies are we should be careful not to fall for this ever ever again.

Life between 1976 and 1980 was very rough. We call our economy today slow, it would be a dream in 1978, halfway through the Carter Presidency.

 

[hogdogs]

Bush sux so I am not voting for him this time...
Brent