Who Were the Best Presidents in the Last 60 or So Years?

[jdobbin]

I've been giving this some thought as the mid-terms wind down. What do other people think?

[Argus]

I've been giving this some thought as the mid-terms wind down. What do other people think?

I think the US isn't ready for a Black president, particularly one with only 1 term under his belt.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. She seems to lack humanity.

McCain should get the Republican nomination but probably won't.

As for the best presidents of the last 60 years - why 60? - they are all flawed, but Roosevelt is clearly the man who faced the most critical time period and saw the US through brilliantly.

[jdobbin]

I think the US isn't ready for a Black president, particularly one with only 1 term under his belt.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. She seems to lack humanity.

McCain should get the Republican nomination but probably won't.

As for the best presidents of the last 60 years - why 60? - they are all flawed, but Roosevelt is clearly the man who faced the most critical time period and saw the US through brilliantly.

It is too early for me to think about presidential candidates until they get on the campaign trail. I mean Howard Dean seemed to be thoughtful and intelligent when he appeared on the series The Editors. On the campaign trail, people thought he was a little hotheaded. He was a good fund raiser though.

I voted for Roosevelt as best U.S. President of the modern era.

After that, I'd say Clinton and Reagan followed by Truman and Eisenhower.

The rest had such flaws and problems that I don't that you can could call them the best.

[Canadian Blue]

I voted for FDR. If I had to say who were in the top category I would put the following:

Best:

Roosevelt

Eisenhower

Reagan

Clinton

Worst:

Truman

George W Bush

LBJ

Nixon

[crazymf]

I thought Jimmy Carter was a putz. All I can remember about him was his brilliant attempt at rescueing the hostages in Iran. Eechh.....

Gerald Ford? I can't remember anything about him but his name. I honestly don't know if he did anything at all.

I have always liked GWB since his Texas governor days. I wish they'd bring back the rope in Canada for a bunch that desperately need it. GW epitomises my opinion of Americans; Right or wrong, they'll do SOMETHING. History will judge George. I suspect the future will make us look back and say he was right about a lot of things.

[jdobbin]

I thought Jimmy Carter was a putz. All I can remember about him was his brilliant attempt at rescueing the hostages in Iran. Eechh.....

Gerald Ford? I can't remember anything about him but his name. I honestly don't know if he did anything at all.

I have always liked GWB since his Texas governor days. I wish they'd bring back the rope in Canada for a bunch that desperately need it. GW epitomises my opinion of Americans; Right or wrong, they'll do SOMETHING. History will judge George. I suspect the future will make us look back and say he was right about a lot of things.

He was right about Iraq?

[Liam]

I voted for Truman. If anyone has doubts about this guy, I seriously suggest reading David McCullough's book. Amazing.

Truman was a true hero -- he flew so far below the radar, was kept out of the loop on the Manhattan Project, knew almost nothing before becoming president, but was given the thankless task of accounting for US war expenses in WW2... he did not make friends. Yet he was a man of such sterling character, he inherited a war on the verge of victory (yet not quite there), he became president after a titanic figure (FDR) who had dominated the political scene during the first half of a century, and he was largely seen as a disposable man, a habberdasher, a nothing. He was the US representative at Potsdam, oversaw the Marshall Plan, initiate the defense of Korea, fired MacArthur, battled steel and coal unions, retooled the US economy from a war footing to a peaceful, prosperity-based economy. He had the strength of character to fight terrible odds, he fought for what he believed in. When it was over, it was over. He graciously exited the stage to live a quiet life back in Independence, Missouri with his wife Bess. He never again sought the spotlight, he never let his ego get the better of him. He was the epitome of the American political ideal and was amazing.

[ft.niagara]

I voted for Truman.

Liam, if you voted for Truman, you must be around 80 years old. If you are that age and use the computer the way you do, you should be complemented.

BTW, Yes Truman, the winning President at the end of WWII, and Reagan, the winning President of the Cold War.

[ft.niagara]

McCain should get the Republican nomination but probably won't.

McCain is getting a little old (looking at least), and is not a team player. Politics is a team sport.

[jdobbin]

I voted for Truman. If anyone has doubts about this guy, I seriously suggest reading David McCullough's book. Amazing.

Truman was a true hero -- he flew so far below the radar, was kept out of the loop on the Manhattan Project, knew almost nothing before becoming president, but was given the thankless task of accounting for US war expenses in WW2... he did not make friends. Yet he was a man of such sterling character, he inherited a war on the verge of victory (yet not quite there), he became president after a titanic figure (FDR) who had dominated the political scene during the first half of a century, and he was largely seen as a disposable man, a habberdasher, a nothing. He was the US representative at Potsdam, oversaw the Marshall Plan, initiate the defense of Korea, fired MacArthur, battled steel and coal unions, retooled the US economy from a war footing to a peaceful, prosperity-based economy. He had the strength of character to fight terrible odds, he fought for what he believed in. When it was over, it was over. He graciously exited the stage to live a quiet life back in Independence, Missouri with his wife Bess. He never again sought the spotlight, he never let his ego get the better of him. He was the epitome of the American political ideal and was amazing.

He certainly had to step up when his country needed him. I wonder if there will be a reevaluation of his life over the years.

[Liam]

I voted for Truman.

Liam, if you voted for Truman, you must be around 80 years old. If you are that age and use the computer the way you do, you should be complemented.

BTW, Yes Truman, the winning President at the end of WWII, and Reagan, the winning President of the Cold War.

Actually, I am in my 30's. Barely, but still in my 30's.

[crazymf]

He was right about Iraq?

That will be told in the future. I believe in GWB and will go down swinging believing in him. I have never been a bandwagon type of guy. He did the tough stuff and the typical public couldn't stay with it for the long haul. That's exactly what AlQuaida predicted. This terrorist crap isn't over yet.

The worst thing that could ever happen to North America is for the Democrats to get a president in for the next term. I believe if they do, they'll cut and run out of Iraq. Bad, bad, bad.

[jdobbin]

That will be told in the future. I believe in GWB and will go down swinging believing in him. I have never been a bandwagon type of guy. He did the tough stuff and the typical public couldn't stay with it for the long haul. That's exactly what AlQuaida predicted. This terrorist crap isn't over yet.

The worst thing that could ever happen to North America is for the Democrats to get a president in for the next term. I believe if they do, they'll cut and run out of Iraq. Bad, bad, bad.

If he doesn't come up with a better plan for Iraq, he could leave a Democratic President as his legacy.

[KrustyKidd]

He was right about Iraq?

Sure was. Saddam had to be dealt with and removed, otherwise he would continue to destabilise the region necessitating a US presence there without an upside for the US for many decades - simply to keep him constrained.

By taking him out, which eliminated a long term headache with no upsides, the US could also provide an bonus for the west by creating a stable, human rights orientated country right in the heart of the problem area. An area in which the Jihadists thrive in, as well as providing an example and impetus for other repressive regimes in the area to follow. In a war, you have to take and hold ground, and the War on Terror is a war against an ideology that thrives on repression. In short, the US has taken a country and given it back to the people in order to deny Jihadists the conditions they need to entrench themselves. Just because it has not had it's problems and is often not going well, does not mean it is a failure nor, does it mean it was a bad move.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Lyndon Johnson deserves a lot of credit.

Sure he wasn't as *charismatic* as Kennedy but he didn't f*ck up as monumentally as Kennedy either.

His Great Society programs went a long way to reducing poverty in the US and helping in the fight for civil rights.

Too bad he got saddled with Vietnam and war-mongering generals he didn't ignore...

Bill Clinton will be seen as a very good President. Whitewater was a partisan joke and people will see that whe it is placed in its historical context.

[jdobbin]

By taking him out, which eliminated a long term headache with no upsides, the US could also provide an bonus for the west by creating a stable, human rights orientated country right in the heart of the problem area. An area in which the Jihadists thrive in, as well as providing an example and impetus for other repressive regimes in the area to follow. In a war, you have to take and hold ground, and the War on Terror is a war against an ideology that thrives on repression. In short, the US has taken a country and given it back to the people in order to deny Jihadists the conditions they need to entrench themselves. Just because it has not had it's problems and is often not going well, does not mean it is a failure nor, does it mean it was a bad move.

That country is breaking apart before our very eyes. All the good things that were supposed to happen in Iraq hang in the balance. Even a tripling of the troops there would probably not help at this point.

[Liam]

...In a war, you have to take and hold ground, and the War on Terror is a war against an ideology that thrives on repression. In short, the US has taken a country and given it back to the people in order to deny Jihadists the conditions they need to entrench themselves. Just because it has not had it's problems and is often not going well, does not mean it is a failure nor, does it mean it was a bad move.

But is this what actually happened? I think it's pretty obvious that what happened is that while US soldiers where capturing ground, the US government was creating a situation that encouraged Jihadists to fill a void. In a battle for hearts and minds, possession of real estate is not an issue. Bush saw this as a battle for real estate, while it was a battle of ideas. Unfortunately, he so far hasn't even won the battle for real estate. The battle for hearts and minds is already lost to him.

[ft.niagara]

Lyndon Johnson deserves a lot of credit.

His Great Society programs went a long way to reducing poverty in the US and helping in the fight for civil rights.

Too bad he got saddled with Vietnam and war-mongering generals he didn't ignore...

He was the architect through his great society for a TON of illegitimate children through his breakup of the black family. Generation after welfare generation.

VietNam was a mistake, and lack of resolve to fight to win, mine the harbor, bomb the dikes, etc. You can not fight a PC war, and win.

[crazymf]

...In a war, you have to take and hold ground, and the War on Terror is a war against an ideology that thrives on repression. In short, the US has taken a country and given it back to the people in order to deny Jihadists the conditions they need to entrench themselves. Just because it has not had it's problems and is often not going well, does not mean it is a failure nor, does it mean it was a bad move.

But is this what actually happened? I think it's pretty obvious that what happened is that while US soldiers where capturing ground, the US government was creating a situation that encouraged Jihadists to fill a void. In a battle for hearts and minds, possession of real estate is not an issue. Bush saw this as a battle for real estate, while it was a battle of ideas. Unfortunately, he so far hasn't even won the battle for real estate. The battle for hearts and minds is already lost to him.

Well, then it's time to break from politics and just go in and kill them all. Reset....

Ask each and every Iraqi: Are you with us or against us? Wrong answer? Pop.

[Liam]

Well, then it's time to break from politics and just go in and kill them all. Reset....

Ask each and every Iraqi: Are you with us or against us? Wrong answer? Pop.

<deep inhale>... I don't even know how to respond.

This, oddly, sounds a lot like what's going on in Iraq already. Someone gets kidnapped and his family gets a call, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" the caller asks. The family has to weigh their response -- do they tell the truth or do they lie and hope they've hit the 50-50 knowing the wrong answer means a bullet in their loved one's brain. Either way, I think we in the west ought to strive for being better people than that. Maybe I'm alone in thinking we ought to be better.

[jdobbin]

Well, then it's time to break from politics and just go in and kill them all. Reset....

Ask each and every Iraqi: Are you with us or against us? Wrong answer? Pop.

I wonder how many would lie. And then wait to pop back.

At any rate, there are enough Republican insiders who think the Rumsfeld policy in Iraq was not working.

Listen to what Kenneth Adelman thought.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/061111/usa/us_iraq_rumsfeld

[Liam]

...At any rate, there are enough Republican insiders who think the Rumsfeld policy in Iraq was not working.

Listen to what Kenneth Adelman thought.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/061111/usa/us_iraq_rumsfeld

Heretic!!! How dare you question the Dear Leader?!?!

[KrustyKidd]

But is this what actually happened? I think it's pretty obvious that what happened is that while US soldiers where capturing ground, the US government was creating a situation that encouraged Jihadists to fill a void.

Half of Saudi Arabia were on Al Queda's side. You don't think that many from there, Syria and other countries would come there to cash in on the opportunity during the confusion when Saddam was not controlling with an iron fist? And, to fight an infidel to boot!

In a battle for hearts and minds, possession of real estate is not an issue. Bush saw this as a battle for real estate, while it was a battle of ideas.

Think you have that one backwards big time. Iraq is a property of Iraqi people, not the US. 65% of them participated in elections with 78% aproval of their constitution which mentions nothing about being a state of the USA. Wondering, what electorial process the Jihadists have n mind if they ever gain control? Answer: none. Democracy is their enemy thus, it is a battle of ideas, one in which Bush and the Iraqis are well aware.

Unfortunately, he so far hasn't even won the battle for real estate. The battle for hearts and minds is already lost to him.

The US already has their real estate in the Super Bases in Iraq. The battle for hearts and minds was won the moment the elections took place. Now it is all directed at helping the fragile government weather those who wish to impose their own will on the people rather than give them choice.

[Liam]

Half of Saudi Arabia were on Al Queda's side. You don't think that many from there, Syria and other countries would come there to cash in on the opportunity during the confusion when Saddam was not controlling with an iron fist? And, to fight an infidel to boot!...

Think you have that one backwards big time. Iraq is a property of Iraqi people, not the US. 65% of them participated in elections with 78% aproval of their constitution which mentions nothing about being a state of the USA. Wondering, what electorial process the Jihadists have n mind if they ever gain control? Answer: none. Democracy is their enemy thus, it is a battle of ideas, one in which Bush and the Iraqis are well aware....

The US already has their real estate in the Super Bases in Iraq. The battle for hearts and minds was won the moment the elections took place. Now it is all directed at helping the fragile government weather those who wish to impose their own will on the people rather than give them choice.

1. If it was known that half of Saudi Arabi and Syria would come in to capitalize on chaos in Iraq, why did we allow chaos to ensue? The Bush administration was incompetent and those who stood in the best position to take advantage of that chaos took advantage of it and we're now pretty screwed in terms of Iraq.

2. Of course Iraq is the property of the Iraqis. You fail to grasp what I'm saying. Bush and Rumsfeld saw the war ONLY in terms as a race to Baghdad, in terms of grabbing ground. They assumed the flowers and chocolates and confetti-laden parades would follow. They were wrong. What mattered more was winning the long term goodwill of the Iraqi people. Bush failed. I know that Iraqis voted, but that doesn't matter in terms of victory. When your sister gets blown to bits or when your child turns up with his throat slit, do you really feel happy that the US is occupying your country? In the view of most Iraqis, these things would not have happened if the US didn't invade.

What mattered is whether Iraqis viewed us as liberators and as proponents of a path worth fighting for. Unfortunately, we uncorked the bottle which held in check all the thnic strife that always bubbled below the surafec in Iraq. With our cowboy diplomacy, we thought we could go in there and crack skulls and everyone would all just get along. Not so. We failed to understand the terrain, the ethnic clashes. We DID NOT win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, despite their voting. If we won hearts and minds, how do you explain the chaos in Iraq today?

Believe me, I would love to see us win in Iraq, but you can't gloss over all the missteps and think that becoming strident in rhetoric when discussing the issue with domestic parties is going to win the war. The truth is that the war is going to evolve with or without our opinions. It is going to be won or lost without our input. My opinion is that we have put ourselves so far down the path to defeat that total victory it is all but hopeless at this point. And, so far, my position has been borne out in just about every report from the front.

[KrustyKidd]

If it was known that half of Saudi Arabi and Syria would come in to capitalize on chaos in Iraq, why did we allow chaos to ensue? The Bush administration was incompetent and those who stood in the best position to take advantage of that chaos took advantage of it and we're now pretty screwed in terms of Iraq.

On Al Queda's side idealogicaly, not active. If they were actively, then there would be no US soldiers in Iraq as they would all be dead.

Of course Iraq is the property of the Iraqis. You fail to grasp what I'm saying. Bush and Rumsfeld saw the war ONLY in terms as a race to Baghdad, in terms of grabbing ground.

And how would you hav e conducted a military operation to oust Saddam other than to take ground and deny it to Iraqi military?

They assumed the flowers and chocolates and confetti-laden parades would follow. They were wrong.

They were.

What mattered more was winning the long term goodwill of the Iraqi people. Bush failed. I know that Iraqis voted, but that doesn't matter in terms of victory. When your sister gets blown to bits or when your child turns up with his throat slit, do you really feel happy that the US is occupying your country? In the view of most Iraqis, these things would not have happened if the US didn't invade.

Or when your teacher gets his head chopped off in front of the class and the next day another is there to replace him it speaks volumes of the drive and courage these people have to take the bull by the horns and carry on to build their country.

What mattered is whether Iraqis viewed us as liberators and as proponents of a path worth fighting for.

They do though. Any moron knows that Saddam was ousted by them hence, by definitition they are liberators. I am sure that Iraqis grow sick and tired of their prsence just as they are tired of the continual violence from a mirad of groups but, they understnad that the US must stay until the government can stand on it's own. An very unpleasent reality to say the least.

Believe me, I would love to see us win in Iraq, but you can't gloss over all the missteps and think that becoming strident in rhetoric when discussing the issue with domestic parties is going to win the war. The truth is that the war is going to evolve with or without our opinions. It is going to be won or lost without our input. My opinion is that we have put ourselves so far down the path to defeat that total victory it is all but hopeless at this point. And, so far, my position has been borne out in just about every report from the front.

We don't win in Iraq. The Iraqis do. The US already has acheived most of their objectives there so they have won which only leaves the win for the Iraqi people at stake. Support of the government they themselves have chosen is what needs to be maintained until it can stand on it's own.