|
Ironic, perhaps, that one of Reagan's hallmarks, working with a Democratic congress to forge real bipartisan accords through genuine personal friendships, is seen by both parties these days as a weakness. But perhaps it's a legacy that we could carry forth on this board.
Chris, this is why I miss Reagan (and Tip O'Neal for that matter). Ever since Bush 41, government has become a total partisan joke. Dems in Congress more or less forced the tax increase on Bush, then turned around and used that to get Clinton elected. "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth". Ever since Richards got that (admittedly funny) line off at the '92 convention, politics has been a nasty partisan cesspool.
Ever since Richards got that (admittedly funny) line off at the '92 convention, politics has been a nasty partisan cesspool.
Ever since Jefferson and Hamilton squared off during Washington's administration, I'd say -- "nasty partisan cesspool" is the baseline condition, from which we have occasional temporary reprieves.
I think it's interesting that a feminist would want a man to 'force' a woman to do anything.
Ever since Richards got that (admittedly funny) line off at the '92 convention, politics has been a nasty partisan cesspool.Ever since Jefferson and Hamilton squared off during Washington's administration, I'd say, but to each their own. Nasty partisan cesspool is the baseline condition, from which we have occasional temporary reprieves.
Yep. At least it doesn't get as nasty as it did with the Roman Empire where assassination was commonplace.
|
|
Ever since Richards got that (admittedly funny) line off at the '92 convention, politics has been a nasty partisan cesspool.Ever since Jefferson and Hamilton squared off during Washington's administration, I'd say -- "nasty partisan cesspool" is the baseline condition, from which we have occasional temporary reprieves.
Well, yeah. But I'm thinking in my lifetime. :)
And why do you feel that way, Houston? (That's if you want a discussion, that is. :D)Well, he was the last president we had that I thought was presidential. Clinton was effective, sort of, but he never really made me think "Wow, that's the way a president should be". Carter, Bush 41, Bush 43, and especially Obama do not do it for me at all.
Adding in Nixon and Ford for myself I have but one issue with this. Bush 41 was presidential he was also a stand up Vice President for Reagan. He spoke his mind but supporter his president and then when he took over he did what he had too even when it wasn't popular to help the nations. He didn't look at polls that told him raising taxes would cost him the election, he looked instead at the numbers and did what he believed would help America the most. That is to me defines presidential.
Hmmm, lifetime presidents ranking, totally subjective:
1. Bush, Sr. (favorite)
2. Clinton (dude really grew on me)
3. Nixon (until Watergate, I thought he did a great job)
4. Reagan (meh)
5. Ford (meh)
6. Bush, Jr.
7. Carter (least favorite)
Leaving Obama off until he gets a couple of years in; it's too soon to tell, but I'd stick him near Gerald Ford so far.
|
|
Hmmm, lifetime presidents ranking, totally subjective:
1. Bush, Sr. (favorite)
2. Clinton (dude really grew on me)
3. Nixon (until Watergate, I thought he did a great job)
4. Reagan (meh)
5. Ford (meh)
6. Bush, Jr.
7. Carter (least favorite)Leaving Obama off until he gets a couple of years in; it's too soon to tell, but I'd stick him near Gerald Ford so far.
Based on the last 11 months, and the European press/politician reaction, dude may be below Pierce before it's all said and done.
|
Just thought you might like to see how the Presidents stack up. The first poll was a public opinion poll by Rassmussen.
George Washington (94% favorable, 2% unfavorable)
Abraham Lincoln (92% favorable, 4% unfavorable)
Thomas Jefferson (89% favorable, 4% unfavorable)
Theodore Roosevelt (84% favorable, 8% unfavorable)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (81% favorable, 12% unfavorable)
John F. Kennedy (80% favorable, 13% unfavorable)
John Adams (74% favorable, 9% unfavorable)
James Madison (73% favorable, 8% unfavorable)
Ronald Reagan (72% favorable, 22% unfavorable)
Dwight Eisenhower (72% favorable, 15% unfavorable)
Harry Truman (70% favorable, 14% unfavorable)
Andrew Jackson (69% favorable, 14% unfavorable)
Gerald Ford (62% favorable, 26% unfavorable)
John Quincy Adams (59% favorable, 7% unfavorable)
Ulysses S. Grant (58% favorable, 24% unfavorable)
George H.W. Bush (57% favorable, 41% unfavorable)
Jimmy Carter (57% favorable, 34% unfavorable)
William Taft (57% favorable, 15% unfavorable)
Woodrow Wilson (56% favorable, 19% unfavorable)
Bill Clinton (55% favorable, 41% unfavorable)
James Monroe (49% favorable, 10% unfavorable)
Herbert Hoover (48% favorable, 34% unfavorable)
Lyndon B. Johnson (45% favorable, 42% unfavorable)
Andrew Johnson (45% favorable, 26% unfavorable)
Chester Arthur (43% favorable, 17% unfavorable)
James A. Garfield (42% favorable, 16% unfavorable)
William McKinley (42% favorable, 24% unfavorable)
George W. Bush (41% favorable, 59% unfavorable)
Grover Cleveland (40% favorable, 26% unfavorable)
Calvin Coolidge (38% favorable, 31% unfavorable)
Rutherford B. Hayes (38% favorable, 19% unfavorable)
Richard Nixon (32% favorable, 60% unfavorable)
Benjamin Harrison (30% favorable, 35% unfavorable)
Warren Harding (29% favorable, 33% unfavorable)
James Buchanan (28% favorable, 32% unfavorable)
James Polk (27% favorable, 21% unfavorable)
Zachary Taylor (26% favorable, 18% unfavorable)
Martin Van Buren (23% favorable, 19% unfavorable)
William Harrison (21% favorable, 16% unfavorable)
Franklin Pierce (17% favorable, 25% unfavorable)
Millard Fillmore (17% favorable, 25% unfavorable)
John Tyler (9% favorable, 15% unfavorable)
The other is a poll of professional historians.
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
John F. Kennedy
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
Ronald Reagan
Lyndon B. Johnson
James K. Polk
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
Bill Clinton
William McKinley
John Adams
George H. W. Bush
John Quincy Adams
James Madison
Grover Cleveland
Gerald R. Ford
Ulysses S. Grant
William Howard Taft
Jimmy Carter
Calvin Coolidge
Richard M. Nixon
James A. Garfield
Zachary Taylor
Benjamin Harrison
Martin Van Buren
Chester A. Arthur
Rutherford B. Hayes
Herbert Hoover
John Tyler
George W. Bush
Millard Fillmore
Warren G. Harding
William Henry Harrison
Franklin D. Pierce
Andrew Johnson
James Buchanan
Because President Obama has not served one term yet, he was not elegable for voting in either poll.
Here's my list of presidents
1) Reagan- My favorite by a landslide
2) George W.- like the cavalier cowboy. Does what is right and not what's popular.
3) Clinton- I liked him after the '94 elections
4) Ford- Meh
5) George H.- Didn't care for his world view
6) Nixon- Not only for Watergate but his economic plans were a disaster
7) Carter- no explanation needed.
|
|
The Reagan era will be remembered as an era of renewed patriotism and hope for a better future. It will also be remembered as an era of economic growth and military strength that even revisionism can not touch.Fixed it for you. ;)
I really hate it when folks do this word replacement stuff. If you don't agree with someone, wrote your own damn words why don't you? This just shows no respect for your fellow posters.
|
|
2) George W.- like the cavalier cowboy. Does what is right and not what's popular.
The funny thing about perspective is that many of us look at what Bush did, and the word right doesn't come to mind at all.
Unless you meant right wing
+1
The best thing about W's term as President was that it wasn't Cheney instead.
1. Lincoln: he walked a razor's edge during the most tumultuous period of American history. He did it successfully. he even surrounded himself with the most powerful politicians despite the fact they literally wanted his head. Wow, enough said.
2. Good old T.J. hits number two for me. He may have felt that the Louisiana purchase was too much for his personal views of the role of the federal government but he understood what it could do for the nation and pursued it anyway. Tremendous statesman and philosopher.
3. Ronald Wilson Reagan. Sun Tzu said that perfection was not winning a thousand battles without losing one but rather winning one without actually entering into combat. We did not trade blows with the Soviet Union under Reagan. We faced them with proxies and buried them economically. Sun Tzu would be proud.
...
There have been a lot of presidents to take up the middle, IMO. Some of them had so so terms or were gifted with good times. Also, there are a great number who would be near the bottom due to very short terms or just incredibly poor performance. I will leave out the names.
|
|
Yeah. It takes twice the man as Reagan to keep talking about one's self while doing nothing, spending three times the money in one eighth the time, to much less effect (unless the desired effect was lining the pockets of your political cronies), lying, continually, and with the help of the media, about how many jobs have been "created or saved", in congressional districts that do not exist, under your aegis while real jobs are being lost by the millions, to look the other way or actively dismiss charges of voter fraud, voter intimidation, and other shenanigans, to lose the respect of many of the world leaders, who have, by and large, dismissed you as a lightweight, to alienate an entire section of Europe a "lesser" man helped free from Communism, to turn your back on the only true democracy and real ally we have in the Middle East, to push a bill through the Senate that even House members in your own party are calling a dangerous joke, to give CEOs of two Federally controlled mortgage companies that FAILED MISERABLY six million dollar bonuses while vilifying Wall Street (who, btw, gives their political dollars 10 to 1 to your party) for doing the same, playing more rounds of golf in ten months than your predecessor did in four years while there is much work to be done...
Yeah, twice the man as Reagan...
Dives for the foxhole
FIRE IN THE HOLE!
Certainly as much as you do! :)Wow. You really enjoy those blinders, don't you :)Obama couldn't hold Reagan's jock strap...This is funny. Obama is twice the man that Reagan ever was.
No, I don't believe that is a fair interpretation of events. Reagan accomplished a tremendous amount during his eight years of office and there has been time to evaluate that. Obama has one year in office and there has not been time to judge and evaluate the results. So, there is nothing in his term to grade him on. He can only be accurately compared to the couple of presidents who served less than one term.
|
|
One of Reagans hallmarks was personal responsibility. Some folks here dislike him for the Iran Contra scandal. However, at least he went on national television and took responsibility:
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who is best known for his "I did not have sex with that woman" while his wife complained it was all a "right wing conspiracy". And his "define sex" comment.
While both had great charisma and were able to draw those they dealt with towards their personal vision, there was a HUGE difference in their individual character.
Reagan was believable, I have found Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama as suspect (at best) in terms of image AND substance.
BTW, here is a link to a Christmas address by Reagan, as this is still the holiday season:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIZMGBdhav8
He comes across as very presidential, compassionate and believable.
That is something that seems to have been lost after Bush 1 left office.
Bush 2 tried to be presidential and succeeded for a short period after 9/11. Sadly, he was not the best choice, only the better of what was offered to the electorate.
|
|
No, I don't believe that is a fair interpretation of events. Reagan accomplished a tremendous amount during his eight years of office and there has been time to evaluate that. Obama has one year in office and there has not been time to judge and evaluate the results. So, there is nothing in his term to grade him on. He can only be accurately compared to the couple of presidents who served less than one term.Certainly as much as you do! :)Wow. You really enjoy those blinders, don't you :)Obama couldn't hold Reagan's jock strap...This is funny. Obama is twice the man that Reagan ever was.
And yet, with less than a year under his belt, some feel obama has done enough to have earned a Nobel Peace Prize. Some feel he saved us from the great depression 2. Some feel he has saved and created millions of jobs. Some believe the world now respects America due to his actions and words. They also believe they will soon be getting free health care. I guess they will believe he kept America safe from terrorist attacks and Iran intends to engage in a dialoge of peace due to the olive branch he is waving about.
I am speaking of Americans in general, no one specific here.
I guess three more years won't hurt. It's only fair to give him his full term to do his thing.
Frankly, he appears as an empty shell to me. I can't put a finger on him. He seems to be an illusion, a facade. There is no pinning him down. What does he REALLY stand for? I don't know. Voted "present" in the senate, whats that about? How about a yes or no. This health care bill: (all imperial sounding) I want "this", legislative branch, have it on my desk by x/x/xx. WTF? (he's gonna have a LOT of fun if the republicans get any control next election). He's not really a leader, he seems to be a delegator.
But three more years could prove me wrong.
A very different man than Reagan.
|
Let’s get this right. No one feels Obama has done anything to deserve the Nobel. The Nobel committee does not feel he has done anything to deserve this prize. They gave it to him as a mandate to continue to do as he is because that’s what they think they want. It is his potential that they applauded. Lets face it he does have potential. As of yet it has not been reached. His numbers may not be as low as Bush’s but they don’t have much further to fall to reach it.
While both had great charisma and were able to draw those they dealt with towards their personal vision, there was a HUGE difference in their individual character.
In terms of personal character, Jimmy Carter was supposedly a saint. But he was a LOUSY president, who fouled up just about everything he attempted. Clinton somehow managed to keep sight of Bush Sr's "pay as you go" philosophy long enough to balance the budget. These examples, and others, tell me that (counterintuitively) personal character does not make a good president. Indeed, it might even be an impediment.
Thank you for the list, David. Where on earth did Rassmussen find a group of people in which 28% gave Buchanan a favorable report? Better than Taylor? Than Polk?? (It was a Buchanan family barbecue, wasn't it?)
Since the poll measures popular "feelings," it's strongly biased in favor of more recent presidents scoring higher or lower than less-easily-remembered ones. Also, presidents who had major crises or changes during their presidency are likely to score much higher than they deserve, simply from recognition factor. Very good historical presidents who kept the nation on an even keel should be expected to score low (e.g., Millard Fillmore at 2nd to last).
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".
I know you've embraced Texas wholeheartedly, and I know it was official right-wing Texas radio policy to a priori declare Obama the Antichrist and worst president ever, even before he was elected, but I'm still inclined to wait half a term before I start spewing invective. That gives him a year to shape up before I join you...
... declare Obama the Antichrist ...
I've never understood this line of thought myself. I always imagined the Antichrist as more... I dunno. Elegant. Eloquent. Cultured. Like Damien in The Omen, or Nicolae in that Left Behind book series that I never read past the fifth book. Damien was better overall, but Nicolae did have Wicked Cultured down pat.
Obama doesn't ring Antichrist to me. He's just too... blah.
|
|
If you recall correctly, Clinton was on the path of one of the worst until the '94 mid term elections. Difference is, Clinton didn't piss off the opposition party by completely ignoring that they existed before that election. And Clinton actually did give a rat's ass what the majority of Americans thought, not just his party faithful.
Obama is likely to lose the House completely next year, and probably will lose a few Senate seats, removing the 60 seat "super majority" he enjoys now. And he will be facing a VERY hostile congress when that happens. He, in all likelihood, will not get the chance to make a difference, as he doesn't have a quarter of the political chops Clinton, his political better in every way, had.
|
|
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".I know you've embraced Texas wholeheartedly, and I know it was official right-wing Texas radio policy to a priori declare Obama the Antichrist and worst president ever, even before he was elected, but I'm still inclined to wait half a term before I start spewing invective. That gives him a year to shape up before I join you...
We have a liberal Lesbian mayor. In Texas' largest city. You really need to stop going to Andrews and thinking that's Texas ;)
We have a liberal Lesbian mayor. In Texas' largest city. You really need to stop going to Andrews and thinking that's Texas ;)Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".I know you've embraced Texas wholeheartedly, and I know it was official right-wing Texas radio policy to a priori declare Obama the Antichrist and worst president ever, even before he was elected, but I'm still inclined to wait half a term before I start spewing invective. That gives him a year to shape up before I join you...
I'm from Victoria, or rather just outside it, so when I think Texas I think of that more than I do Houston, SA, CC, or Austin. :P
Clinton somehow managed to keep sight of Bush Sr's "pay as you go" philosophy long enough to balance the budget.You mean, Clinton finally caved in to Gingrich when Newt basically shut down the government until Clinton accepted a balanced budget. Same effect, radically different cause.
It's amazing how you have that 180 degrees from what actually happened. Clinton refused to sign the budget Gingrich proposed, the government shut down, and Clinton got the budget he wanted.
It's only considered one of the greatest political showdowns of the 90's, but I guess if you're looking through Reagan Red/Rose colored glasses, you'll see it how you want to.
Frankly, I tire of the whole antichrist cliche. Period.
This just shows no respect for your fellow posters.
With your past history on these boards, isn't this an example of the "pot calling the kettle black".
|
|
While both had great charisma and were able to draw those they dealt with towards their personal vision, there was a HUGE difference in their individual character.In terms of personal character, Jimmy Carter was supposedly a saint. But he was a LOUSY president, who fouled up just about everything he attempted. Clinton somehow managed to keep sight of Bush Sr's "pay as you go" philosophy long enough to balance the budget. These examples, and others, tell me that (counterintuitively) personal character does not make a good president. Indeed, it might even be an impediment.
Carter was the prime example of this. He had character and would not comprimise on this for anyone. As such he was a crappy deal maker. Clinton well he was smart and savy and would gladly drop one deal in favor of a more lucrative one. He wasn't perfect but for the most part he got the job done. Problem was, he couldnt care elss for the military and that was always whom he messed with to get what ever else it was he wanted. Reagan was a motivator and could get peopel for the most part to agree with him and get things done. He got people on both sides of the fence to well, like him. Obama has not been in office long enough to actually say he is or is not any othe these things. I hate it when peopel don't give the man a chance. I don't agree with a lot he has done and some he says he will do. I am respectfull enough of the position to give the man the chance he deserves to fix all the things the last administration fowled up. I just wish he would get the idea he has won the presidency and stop campaigning long enough to use the power he has been given.
|
|
This just shows no respect for your fellow posters.With your past history on these boards, isn't this an example of the "pot calling the kettle black".
Aww jeez Garydee, I love you too. Yet, I strive to not do the infamous "there, fixed that for you" type of post. It reeks of unoriginality of thought and silliness. But given your history on the boards, I suppose that isn't surprising either. Maybe you just haven't been waterboarded enough?
|
|
Yeah. It takes twice the man as Reagan to keep talking about one's self while doing nothing, spending three times the money in one eighth the time, to much less effect (unless the desired effect was lining the pockets of your political cronies), lying, continually, and with the help of the media, about how many jobs have been "created or saved", in congressional districts that do not exist, under your aegis while real jobs are being lost by the millions, to look the other way or actively dismiss charges of voter fraud, voter intimidation, and other shenanigans, to lose the respect of many of the world leaders, who have, by and large, dismissed you as a lightweight, to alienate an entire section of Europe a "lesser" man helped free from Communism, to turn your back on the only true democracy and real ally we have in the Middle East, to push a bill through the Senate that even House members in your own party are calling a dangerous joke, to give CEOs of two Federally controlled mortgage companies that FAILED MISERABLY six million dollar bonuses while vilifying Wall Street (who, btw, gives their political dollars 10 to 1 to your party) for doing the same, playing more rounds of golf in ten months than your predecessor did in four years while there is much work to be done...
Yeah, twice the man as Reagan...
Ouch, think I struck a nerve there. Besides, Obama is cherished by world leaders. Where are you getting that info from?
Tell you what. Let's give the elected President of the United States at least a full 4 years before we start screaming DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM; 'kay?
Besides, Obama is cherished by world leaders.
This is not necessarily a point in his favor.
Aww jeez Garydee, I love you too. Yet, I strive to not do the infamous "there, fixed that for you" type of post. It reeks of unoriginality of thought and silliness. But given your history on the boards, I suppose that isn't surprising either. Maybe you just haven't been waterboarded enough?This just shows no respect for your fellow posters.With your past history on these boards, isn't this an example of the "pot calling the kettle black".
Nah, you just resort to insulting people and calling them names. I really love it when you insult others and then edit the insults out before they or the moderators can see it. Real classy.
Guys, seriously. -_- Knock it off.
Jeez....
So is Jessica Alba. Who the f%*! cares?Besides, Obama is cherished by world leaders.This is not necessarily a point in his favor.
But...but...but. Canadians love him!