Whose your favorite president ever?

[Jim Jeffries]

Probably Calvin Coolidge. Cut taxes across the board. Cut the size of the Federal Government. Granted US citizenship to Native Americans. Kept us out of the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN.

I like the effect Reagan has on wingnut progressives, massive economic recovery and his role in helping defeat the USSR, but that whole massive amnesty blows it for him. Didn't do too badly considering he had to fight a Democrat House for 8 years that shut down the government on him 7 different times.

[chris boys]

another way to judge a President

There is another important criterion for assessing Presidents. It is to look at the overall performance of a President but not to hold a President to perfection. That is, we have to allow a President to make some mistakes. I am confident that even the greatest Presidents have made mistakes. For example, FDR interned Japanese Americans during WWII, and he also engaged in the mistaken course of trying to “pack” the Supreme Court.

We should put the mistakes of a President in context with the situation he was dealing with. In the example above, I personally would have cut FDR some slack for initially interning Japanese Americans, given that the country had just been surprise attacked by Japan. Similarly, I would have cut GWB some slack for his initial use of torture in limited cases, given the attack of 9-ll. Put yourself in the President’s shoes after Pearl Harbor or after 9-ll. Those were really critical and dangerous times, and also quite chaotic with only a limited understanding of what was actually going on. FDR and Bush perhaps thought that they had to eliminate potential threats and/or take radical actions to try and get to the bottom of things and protect the country. That type of understanding is not unreasonable.

Notice that I use the word “initial” in the above. I do not cut either President slack for continuing their actions for years, especially given that they both had good information that the actions were not productive and violated US and/or international law. Both actions became serious mistakes. Because of the enormous amount of good FDR did, when weighed against the overall achievements of his Presidency, the mistake does not preclude him being ranked in the very top tier of Presidents. Given that Bush’s presidency was an unmitigated disaster (as I have already shown), his actions are just one more example of how he couldn’t do anything right, but could do a great amount of wrong.

When does a mistake become so great that it eliminates the possibility of a President being ranked in the very top tier? We have an example of such a mistake in the Presidency of LBJ. In his domestic programs it cannot be disputed that LBJ was one of the greatest Presidents ever. In fact, I challenge anyone to find any President who did more good for the country domestically than he did. Economically and in advancing the rights of African Americans and the poor, he hit it out of the park (let alone his flawless assumption of power after the assassination of JFK – another critical time for the country). But then we come to his handling of the situation (the war) in Vietnam. This was a colossal mistake; it ripped apart the country and caused the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and over a million Vietnamese lives. It crippled the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to cut LBJ any slack for his mistake. In 1964 he had won the greatest landslide election in American history (and in terms of the popular vote, the greatest even to this day). The public was solidly behind their President, and he controlled both Houses of Congress by hefty margins. He had enormous political capital. The War in Vietnam was far from the holocaust it would turn into; it was still a relatively minor problem. He had the opportunity to get out and explain why, and still keep the country behind him.

As I said with my analysis of GWB, we pay a President to get the correct intelligence before going to war. Like that, LBJ had the responsibility TO UNDERSTAND what the conflict was really about. It was not about a communist North Vietnam invading a democratic (or supposedly democratic) South Vietnam. It was primarily a war for self-determination and to end western colonialism in Vietnam. The Pentagon Papers make clear that Ho Chi Minh would have won any election held for a leader of a united Vietnam (an election that the Geneva accords had in fact promised the Vietnamese people). The U.S. was supporting an egregious violation of international law. Worse, it was going into a war with a people who had demonstrated time and again that they would fight ferociously and unceasingly to gain their self determination. Nonetheless, LBJ got sucked progressively into escalating the conflict, and despite evidence at every turn that the escalation was not working, that his advisors (the “best and the brightest”) were badly mistaken.

This type of mistake precludes Johnson being in the top tier. He had a big plus in one of the “P’s” – prosperity. He had a huge plus in advancing the social good. He had a huge plus in bringing the country through a critical time (that following the assassination of JFK). He even had a substantial plus as a speaker and leader who was inspiring Americans (at least for the year or so after the assassination). However, he had such a huge minus in the other “P” – peace, that he is out of the running for the truly great Presidents.

Nuff said for now.

[Beercules]

http://i.imgur.com/QWDcmaY.jpg

[Drunken Cat]

Just shut up. What destroyed the black family was black 'men' refusing to raise their children. Blacks lead all races when it comes children born out of wedlock, I believe the number is over 70%.

And fyi, the war on drugs started long before Reagan. You're again showing your complete ignorance in terms of US History.



Source please. And please then address why you are not condemning other Presidents for doing that.



Reagan was never indicted or charged, much less convicted. Even the Democrats running the investigation said there was no evidence Reagan was involved.



He never supported apartheid. Just more lies from you, unless you can source that assertion. And fyi, not putting sanctions on does not alone show he supported their policies. You're reaching, again.

Me and Cauht have our differences, but everything he said about Reagan is true.

[Drunken Cat]

In my life time, Reagan without question.



No, he did not. TOTAL debt increased every year under Clinton, which is not possible had there been a true surplus or balanced budget.

The link below explains the accounting gimmicks and outright falsehoods used by those who claim there was a Clinton surplus:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Total debt has increased every year since the 1970s. There are two types of deficit. Budget deficit and current account deficit. Clinton did balance the budget.

[Drunken Cat]

Franklin Roosevelt is the blueprint for any modern President.

He steered the nation through the Depression and WWII, while implementing Social Security and other government programs that were part of the New Deal.

Even Republican hawks rate Roosevelt higher than most Presidents.

Yeah, FDR achieved many great things. I put him number 2 behind Jefferson, who also achieved a lot. Partly for the nostalgia of Jefferson. FDR is the most successful president. Jefferson also got a lot done, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the establishment of public education, among other things.

[1bad65]

Sometimes I think a lot of these ppl...including the poster you replied to suffer from the Jon Stewart syndrome:

That happens ALOT when debating this topic. Often times I ask the person I'm debating to explain the difference between the two. Almost every time they either do not reply or attempt to change the subject. It's mind-boggling.

[1bad65]

I think you miss an essential point. It goes to the famous saying of Harry Truman: "The buck stops here." That is, the President must ultimately take responsibility for the general economic shape and foreign policy situation (wars/peace etc.) that happened during his watch.

With all due respect to Truman, he's wrong. No matter what he says you cannot dispute the fact correlation does not prove causation.

And again, you were asked to cite Bush-signed policy you blame for the meltdown and recession. Despite your long post you failed to cite any legislation.

Please, try again.

Here is the link for job creation for the various US Presidents ...

The methodology is flawed. Again, Bush averaged under 5% unemployment his first 6 years. Six years of sub-5% unemployment proves job creation was happening beyond all doubt. This trend (which is excellent, and a figure most Presidents would kill for) only changed when the housing marked meltdown hit. And as we now know, you've shown that cannot be blamed on Bush. So they simply used his start and end numbers which fails to tell the full truth. It's cherry-picking at it's finest.

As for 9-ll,...

Yet again, correlation does not prove causation. We now know some of the 9/11 terrorists were able to enter our country due to the 'Wall of Silence' between the CIA and FBI enacted by the Clinton Administration. So again, something well out of his control.

You really need to stop using fallacy as fact.

As for the Iraq War, it is very similar. It does not matter one iota what the Democrats were also saying.

That right there shows you've now conceded fact mean less than partisan Party politics to you and thus shows you entire argument is compromised.

FYI, you destroyed your own argument. Not too often that happens, so thanks for making it easier for me.

Finally, can I get some help from some others on this thread, please? Just check in and tell if you agree (generally) with what I am saying or do you think 1Bad65 is correct.

Again, it's not a popularity contest. You've shown you have no facts on your side, and you're main argument is fallacy as correlation does not prove causation.

[1bad65]

Me and Cauht have our differences, but everything he said about Reagan is true.

No, it isn't. The fact he cant source it despite being asked proves it's not true.

[1bad65]

Total debt has increased every year since the 1970s. There are two types of deficit. Budget deficit and current account deficit. Clinton did balance the budget.

No, he did not. As others and myself have shown, many accounting tricks were used (the term 'unfunded liabilities' is one you should check out) in order to make this claim. Those same accounting tricks would get a private sector CEO thrown in prison.