In my opinion, this country has not had a decent president since Eisenhower (I would say JFK was, but his presidency was too short lived to tell), and every single one since then has done a good job of making us look foolish in one way or another, whether it be starting an unjust war in Vietnam, spying on the Democrats, just being an idiot, doing nothing to help deal with the Energy Crisis, starting a pointless war on drugs and trying to get rid of the middle class, puking on a Japanese leader, being involved in numerous scandals and asking someone to define "is"  ???, or being the first mentally retarded person to be voted into office (and subsequently fudgeing up EVERYTHING). But which one of these failures is the worst? I think it's Bush Jr., just because no administration has done more to violate the constitution more than his. Reagan is a close second for fooling the public into blind conservatism.

I was going to say Nixon but George W. Bush has got to be the worst, I still say the election was rigged in Florida.

In my opinion, this country has not had a decent president since Eisenhower (I would say JFK was, but his presidency was too short lived to tell), and every single one since then has done a good job of making us look foolish in one way or another, whether it be starting an unjust war in Vietnam, spying on the Democrats, just being an idiot, doing nothing to help deal with the Energy Crisis, starting a pointless war on drugs and trying to get rid of the middle class, puking on a Japanese leader, being involved in numerous scandals and asking someone to define "is"  ???, or being the first mentally retarded person to be voted into office (and subsequently fudging up EVERYTHING). But which one of these failures is the worst? I think it's Bush Jr., just because no administration has done more to violate the constitution more than his. Reagan is a close second for fooling the public into blind conservatism.


I take issue with some of your points, VegettoVa. First of all, I think many folks would agree that rating U.S. presidents (or any world leader) can be a bit like not being able to see the proverbial forest for the trees. Take Lyndon Johnson; he was despised by many on both sides of the aisle by the time he left office. His escalation of the Vietnam conflict was the biggest stumbling block, but he also launched many domestic programs to attack poverty, illiteracy, etc, that are seen by some as big positives almost forty years on. It's only been in the last decade or so that Johnson's image seemed to improve, at least in the eyes of historians. This isn't to discount any criticisms he may have had while in office, but I believe we've had worse presidents...some of whom served long before 1963. Ever hear of James Buchanan or Warren Harding? Either one could be the poster child of incompetence in the Oval office. The point is, history is often a more fair judge of public figures than their contemporaries, hence the forest/trees analogy. A balanced view of them is usually not achieved until well after they've disappeared from the spotlight.

Second, Nixon was paranoid about everything. Why that included George McGovern's bosses, I can't imagine. The guy won one stinkin' state in '72!!  :o

Third... "pointless war on drugs"? Pointless to who? I don't pretend to speak for everyone who was of an impressionable age during the 1980's, though I can say straight out that the government's anti-drug campaign was pretty damn effective in scaring the daylights out of me and many people I knew at the time. I doubt that a heroin habit was ever in my suburban future, but Nancy Reagan wasn't taking any chances! I won't get into the old debates about whether the feds were/are being selective in enforcement and the usual conspiracies about their involvement in cocaine trafficking in South Central L.A., etc. Regardless, pairing the war on drugs together with the AIDS epidemic made the 80's a, shall we say, *interesting* time to grow up.

Fourth, what *should* Carter have done about the energy crisis? Better still, what *could* he have done in the short term that would resolved the issue? One could ask the same question concerning high fuel costs today. I hate to agree with W, but he's right...there is no "magic wand" to take care of the problem in a quick, no fuss no muss manner. That's life, unfortunately. Carter found that out the hard way. I have far bigger gripes about Carter's White House tenure than the energy crisis, which had it roots in events that occured well before he was elected to his single term.

As for Reagan and Clinton, each of them had their pros and cons, much like all of the above gentlemen. I think it's interesting how we can so easily paint public officials with such a broad brush, right or wrong. Are there some who practically smell of corruption and abuse of power? Certainly. Are others saints? Perhaps. In my opinion, the overwhelming majority of people in this world fall into a category somewhere between those two extremes.

BTW, where's your analysis of Gerald Ford?  :) Sorry about the long post.

I almost forgot. I'll take Nixon as worst president, but only because I can't vote for someone prior to '63.

I take issue with some of your points, VegettoVa. First of all, I think many folks would agree that rating U.S. presidents (or any world leader) can be a bit like not being able to see the proverbial forest for the trees. Take Lyndon Johnson; he was despised by many on both sides of the aisle by the time he left office. His escalation of the Vietnam conflict was the biggest stumbling block, but he also launched many domestic programs to attack poverty, illiteracy, etc, that are seen by some as big positives almost forty years on. It's only been in the last decade or so that Johnson's image seemed to improve, at least in the eyes of historians. This isn't to discount any criticisms he may have had while in office, but I believe we've had worse presidents...some of whom served long before 1963. Ever hear of James Buchanan or Warren Harding? Either one could be the poster child of incompetence in the Oval office. The point is, history is often a more fair judge of public figures than their contemporaries, hence the forest/trees analogy. A balanced view of them is usually not achieved until well after they've disappeared from the spotlight.
Second, Nixon was paranoid about everything. Why that included George McGovern's bosses, I can't imagine. The guy won one stinkin' state in '72!!  :o

Third... "pointless war on drugs"? Pointless to who? I don't pretend to speak for everyone who was of an impressionable age during the 1980's, though I can say straight out that the government's anti-drug campaign was pretty damn effective in scaring the daylights out of me and many people I knew at the time. I doubt that a heroin habit was ever in my suburban future, but Nancy Reagan wasn't taking any chances! I won't get into the old debates about whether the feds were/are being selective in enforcement and the usual conspiracies about their involvement in cocaine trafficking in South Central L.A., etc. Regardless, pairing the war on drugs together with the AIDS epidemic made the 80's a, shall we say, *interesting* time to grow up.

Fourth, what *should* Carter have done about the energy crisis? Better still, what *could* he have done in the short term that would resolved the issue? One could ask the same question concerning high fuel costs today. I hate to agree with W, but he's right...there is no "magic wand" to take care of the problem in a quick, no fuss no muss manner. That's life, unfortunately. Carter found that out the hard way. I have far bigger gripes about Carter's White House tenure than the energy crisis, which had it roots in events that occured well before he was elected to his single term.

As for Reagan and Clinton, each of them had their pros and cons, much like all of the above gentlemen. I think it's interesting how we can so easily paint public officials with such a broad brush, right or wrong. Are there some who practically smell of corruption and abuse of power? Certainly. Are others saints? Perhaps. In my opinion, the overwhelming majority of people in this world fall into a category somewhere between those two extremes.

BTW, where's your analysis of Gerald Ford?  :) Sorry about the long post.



I did insult Ford, he's known most for being a jock in the White House...aka a complete moron, but I guess I should have inserted "pardoning a criminal" between my analysis on Nixon and Carter. I know there were bad Presidents before Johnson as well, like the ones you mentioned, Harding and Buchanan, as well as Hoover, Cleveland, Grant, and Polk, but, in my opinion (as I said before, this is what I think), the presidencies prior to '63 were inconsistent in terms of negativity - case and point, right after Buchanan lost, Lincoln won and restored the union, and following Hoover we had FDR, who is widely regarded as the 3rd best President next to Lincoln and Washington. Do you see where I'm getting at? And another thing, you mentioned Johnson's programs on poverty: they may have seemed good up front, but, coupled with a really expensive war, taxpayer dollars went through the roof and as a result, the economy went greatly downhill, ending the prosperity of the 50's for good and beginning the stagflation of the 70's. I also think that Carter was a good man, but he was very unfit for the presidency, as he also couldn't deal with the Iran-hostage situation (and neither could Reagan either). The war on drugs not pointless? While I'll agree that it may have worked on some people, it definitely didn't do much in the long run. People smoke pot like crazy, and even shrooms are starting to become more popular; though the really bad stuff like heroin and coke are down, but mostly because of what people saw happen to rock stars and celebrities (i.e. Kurt Cobain committing suicide), not Reagan's stupid agenda to trick the public into following his ignorance. I guess I should have used more than one sentence fragment for my criticisms, I hope I've made my thoughts a bit more clear.

Third... "pointless war on drugs"? Pointless to who?


Exactly.  The biggest winners were a bunch of people who were collectively referred to by your nickname.  They got a boatload of spiffy new powers out of it, and have never really looked back :)

Fourth, what *should* Carter have done about the energy crisis? Better still, what *could* he have done in the short term that would resolved the issue? 


In the long term, fast breeder reactors.  It turned out peak oil was a bigger risk to long-term national security than proliferation.  Although his call was reasonable on the information he had available to him, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty clear he goofed.

In the short term, nothing.  As in "He should have done nothing".  Instead, he tried price controls, which were the direct cause of the shortages (and the memorable pictures of long lines at gas pumps because nobody wants to sell at a loss) and the "malaise" that resulted in the loss of his Presidency.

I got a laundry list of beefs with Carter that's half a mile long, and it's depressing that it's taken the better part of eight years before I'd no longer click his button on this poll.  In the spirit of the age, let the first decade of the 21st century be known as Malaise 2.0. 

Now it's 12--zip George W.

"Does that mean I'm winning?"

--George W.

Yes it does, dearie!
::)

Now it's 12--zip George W.

"Does that mean I'm winning?"

--George W.


Mission Accomplished!

The only real question left for GWB in his last half year in office...

Can he keep his job approval rating above 20%?

Actually, that makes me wonder if they had polling data from December 1860 available, would James Buchanan's rating be higher than Bush's?

Daddy Bush was alright, not too bad, not too good.
Scandels aside, Clinton was pretty good too.
His economic policys sucked, but Regan was great otherwise.

W. I say Nixon if I can't choose him.

I was going to say Nixon but George W. Bush has got to be the worst, I still say the election was rigged in Florida.


Just like the primary in Florida this year?  8)


Fourth, what *should* Carter have done about the energy crisis? Better still, what *could* he have done in the short term that would resolved the issue? One could ask the same question concerning high fuel costs today. I hate to agree with W, but he's right...there is no "magic wand" to take care of the problem in a quick, no fuss no muss manner. That's life, unfortunately. Carter found that out the hard way. I have far bigger gripes about Carter's White House tenure than the energy crisis, which had it roots in events that occured well before he was elected to his single term.


There is not a damned thing Carter could have done, no more then the same issues with fuel costs (and supply) that happened when Nixon was President, or today.  The first 2 were caused by OPEC embargos, and the current problem is due to OPEC greed.  Short of a massive expansion in drilling and refining (thereby breaking the grip OPEC has on international petrolium markets), there is not a single thing that a President can do about the price of gasoline.

Just like the primary in Florida this year?   8)

There is not a damned thing Carter could have done, no more then the same issues with fuel costs (and supply) that happened when Nixon was President, or today.  The first 2 were caused by OPEC embargos, and the current problem is due to OPEC greed.  Short of a massive expansion in drilling and refining (thereby breaking the grip OPEC has on international petrolium markets), there is not a single thing that a President can do about the price of gasoline.


Oh yes there is!  Our government just doesn't want to.  They're up to their necks in these petroleum guys.  It's like a hideous version of the Soviet Union, where everything's super-expensive because a fascist cabal of extraction industry tycoons has a monopoly on the price!  They gotta get the futures market under control, and I wouldn't object to a little government intervention there either.  What, I don't know.

Oh yes there is!  Our government just doesn't want to.  They're up to their necks in these petroleum guys.  It's like a hideous version of the Soviet Union, where everything's super-expensive because a fascist cabal of extraction industry tycoons has a monopoly on the price!  They gotta get the futures market under control, and I wouldn't object to a little government intervention there either.  What, I don't know.


And how can we do that?  Remember, it is not just set in the US.  It is an International Commodity, and the price is set by every country (and commodoties market) in the world.  Not to mention the price that OPEC gets for it.

And it is not like 1973 or 1979.  The entire world is suffering high prices, not just the US.  In fact, we are still dealing with lower rates then all the other oil importing countries.  In most of Europe, $5 a gallon gasoline has been the norm for years.  Heck, I remember seeing rates in Japan 20 years ago that are similar to what we pay now in the US.

So what do we do about Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and all the other OPEN nations?  Blow them up?  How do we stop the speculators on the Brittish Commodities market from raising the prices, blow them up?  Force them to shut down?

Your words may sound nice to some people, but in reality they do nothing about the true cause or problem.  And they take a very simplistic view of the world.  You might as well complain about the price of Gold, Silver, and FCOJ.

And how can we do that?  Remember, it is not just set in the US.  It is an International Commodity, and the price is set by every country (and commodoties market) in the world.  Not to mention the price that OPEC gets for it.

And it is not like 1973 or 1979.  The entire world is suffering high prices, not just the US.  In fact, we are still dealing with lower rates then all the other oil importing countries.  In most of Europe, $5 a gallon gasoline has been the norm for years.  Heck, I remember seeing rates in Japan 20 years ago that are similar to what we pay now in the US.

So what do we do about Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and all the other OPEN nations?  Blow them up?  How do we stop the speculators on the Brittish Commodities market from raising the prices, blow them up?  Force them to shut down?

Your words may sound nice to some people, but in reality they do nothing about the true cause or problem.  And they take a very simplistic view of the world.  You might as well complain about the price of Gold, Silver, and FCOJ.


Well, OK, then, let's pick some ethnic groups and blame it on them.  Now get the rods, Barney, we're goin' fishin'!*

*That's a reference to Don Knotts' "Barney Fife," and I was like Andy Griffith as Sherriff Taylor there,  you know, that's the ticket!  That's what I meant, yeah, yeah...and I also thought about Archie Bunker going fishing with his neighbor Barney Hefner on "All in the Family"  Yeah, that's the ticket....You guys thought I was talking about the Dubya's dog, a ratty Welsh Terrier called Barney.  Or was it Barney the purple dinosaur who gets booed by four-year-olds.  Yeeeeah, that's the one!

Do you know, do you know, do you know?
:P
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/frog.gif

Well, OK, then, let's pick some ethnic groups and blame it on them.  Now get the rods, Barney, we're goin' fishin'!*


"Ethnic Groups"?  Oh come on Max, give me a break!  Talk about "Race Baiting"!

Let's see, who composes OPEC:

Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Indonesia will be a member until the end of 2008.  But they have already quit the organization.

And most experts blame the current surge on none of ther then Hugo Chavez.  In the late 1990's, oil actually hit a record low of $10 a barrel.  It was his showing the effect of closing refineries had on world oil prices that led to the current spike.  And most countries are operating over quota, but under capacity.  The current spike is created by OPEC, because of greed.

And get ready:  Thing may get a lot worse.

The IEA (International Energy Agency) is proposing that OPEC reduce capacity by as much as 20%.  That will mean even less oil on the world market, and even higher prices.  It seems that they have become increasingly influenced by the "Greenhouse Gas" crowd.

So it looks like said people will get their wish:  less greenhouse gases.  And the only way to do that is to increase the price of oil to the point where it is no longer affordable.

Well Nixon was no peach and Dubyah has no clue on how to run a country..so I guess it's a tie

Well Nixon was no peach and Dubyah has no clue on how to run a country..so I guess it's a tie


Is funny how people often remember the bad deeds or mistakes of somebody, and completely forget the good things they did.  If not for the stain of Watergate (a crime he had no involvement with, he simply helped to cover it up after the fact) Nixon would have been recognized as one of the greatest presidents we had.

Here are some of the outstanding things he did:

Ended direct involvement in Vietnam
Got the stalled SALT talks with the USSR restarted and finalized, in addition to formalizing trade with the USSR.
Started and finalized the ABM treaty with the USSR
Supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war, preventing them from being overwhelmed by the Arab Coalition
During the 1973 oil crisis, put in place rationing and price controls
Indexed Social Security to increase due to inflation, and created the SSI program
Created both OSHA, EPA, NOAA, DEA, and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.
Created a comission that helped enforce the Supreme Court ruling outlawing segregation
Created the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act, which would force employers to provide health insurance to employees.
Oh, and he also made this little trip to China.  It is even immortalized in an old Vulcan proverb:

"Only Nixon could go to China."

Hmmmm, quite a lot of really good things there.  In fact, his 1972 Health Care program was later dusted off by Senator Clinton and was the foundation for her own proposal in a great many ways.

So Nixon was a good presedent scandels aside?(Like Bill Clinton)

Do You Really have to ask?

So Nixon was a good presedent scandels aside?(Like Bill Clinton)


Nixon has always been one of the most misunderstood presidents.  Just like his best friend in the Congress, JFK.

In reality, both of them were very good friends, and very alike politically.  JFK was a Conservative Democrat, and Nixon was a Liberal Republican.  Both of them had strong religious convictions, and many of their decisiona reflect that.

However, JFK was a very handsome and personable man, while Nixon was more quiet and self-conscious.  And in the era of live Television, this was a detriment.  I remember reading a commentary on their debates, in which most felt that Nixon won the debates on points.  But because of how he was presented on TV, he was considered the looser because of how he appeared.  And in modern times, image is very important.

One thing I encourage everybody to do is to do their own research before making a decision about something.  You may not have ever really looked into Nixon's past, other then hearing about Watergate.

In fact, look up "Kennedy and Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America" by Christopher Matthews.  It is written by a Democrat, and goes in depth about memories of them from friends, family, and their own notes.  In fact, both candidates almost pulled out in 1960, because they did not want to run against each other.  And both said that if they had lost their parties primaries, they would support the other.

And for those that really don't remember history and have a hard on for Eugene McCarthy, Nixon was the one that pulled his supprt and caused the McCarthy Hearings to collapse.  So that may be yet another reason to support the guy.

President Nixon (like every other President) had good and bad points.  But he is not the universal demon that so many paint him out to be.  And think about how things might be now without the EPA, OSHA, the SALT I and II treaties (Nixon also laid the foundation for SALT II), and many other things he did that I doubt anybody can say were bad.

http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Nixon-Rivalry-Postwar-America/dp/0684832461/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213797240&sr=1-28

Dubya makes Nixon look like Mother Theresa.  I was going to say what Mushroom beat me to it-Nixon did do some good things. Can someone tell me one thing that Dubya has done right? For the life of my I can't think of anything because everything he has touched he has made a total mess of.



Cat

Dubya makes Nixon look like Mother Theresa.  I was going to say what Mushroom beat me to it-Nixon did do some good things. Can someone tell me one thing that Dubya has done right? For the life of my I can't think of anything because everything he has touched he has made a total mess of.



Cat
he gave a good speech after the challenger shuttle blew up. and he opposes farm subsidies.

oh, and dick cheney managed to pull off 911. that had to take some doing.