worst President of last 100 years?

[deaddude]

no votes for Truman yet.

Make your case against him?

I am also still waiting for an explanation for why some people disapprove of FDR.

 

[Munin]

How much time do we need before Obama's name is added to this list?

More then 3 weeks you moron. A presidency lasts 4 years.

Obama just did 1, 44 % of his entire presidency. (1,44 % isn't enough to judge 100% of his presidency)

 

[elvis]

no votes for Truman yet.

Make your case against him?

I am also still waiting for an explanation for why some people disapprove of FDR.

because he is the original democrat as we know democrats today: larger role of government, higher taxes. Right wingers don't like that. I didn't think anyone would rate him the worst prez in the past 100, though.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am curious as to why people think that FDR was a bad president. He was certainly popular in his time. Carter I can easily understand, Clinton I can understand, but why FDR? I can understand Johnson as a bad president, maybe not worst all time, but bad.

For me it would break down like this: worst liberal would be Carter

worst conservative would either be Hoover or Bush

Popularity (contrary to what Obamabots wish to think) is not a determining factor as to whether one is doing 'good' or 'bad' in performance

Understood, but a substantial part of popularity is dependent on whether or not the voters think you are doing a good job. He was elected 4 times. If he was doing poorly, why reelect him?

So again I will ask, why do you think he was a bad president?

His approach with the 'New Deal'.. which was the worst precedent we have had towards government intervention, spending, etc, was horrible and did not do as much for the country getting out of the depression as myth would have one believe

His approach towards Germany and Japan, before we got involved in WWII, was about as inept as Carter's approach towards Iran

I would not put him as the worst.. That is Carter, bar none.... but he is not the mythological great Prez that many put him out to be

Personally my bottom 3 would be:
3) GHWB - Was a pussy, caving in to the UN. Caused us to have to fight a war later on that he should have ensured we finished.
2) Hoover - I think it is pretty explanitory
1) Carter - King moron and got pretty much nothing right

And that's right libbies.. I don't have Clinton in the bottom 3... he was bad, but not nearly as bad as these 3

 

[deaddude]

Popularity (contrary to what Obamabots wish to think) is not a determining factor as to whether one is doing 'good' or 'bad' in performance

Understood, but a substantial part of popularity is dependent on whether or not the voters think you are doing a good job. He was elected 4 times. If he was doing poorly, why reelect him?

So again I will ask, why do you think he was a bad president?

His approach with the 'New Deal'.. which was the worst precedent we have had towards government intervention, spending, etc, was horrible and did not do as much for the country getting out of the depression as myth would have one believe

His approach towards Germany and Japan, before we got involved in WWII, was about as inept as Carter's approach towards Iran

I would not put him as the worst.. That is Carter, bar none.... but he is not the mythological great Prez that many put him out to be

Okay, thanks for the explanation of your opinion.

 

[AllieBaba]

I hit truman, but I meant to hit Teddy.

He harbored soviet spies and referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

 

[elvis]

I hit truman, but I meant to hit Teddy.

He harbored soviet spies and referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

who is Teddy?

 

[deaddude]

I am fairly young so I am going to start with Johnson and just go through the presidents listed in the poll. These are broad sweeping generalizations.

Johnson,
Positive: Some very important civil rights actions were taken and supported by his presidency.
Negatives: Vietnam fiasco.

Nixon,
Positive: Some good diplomatic work, especially in Asia
Negative: water gate

Carter,
Positive: getting Egypt to recognize Israels right to exist
Negative: economic policies

Clinton,
Positive: economic policies
Negative: Monicagate

Bush jr.
Positive: some genuine good work in Africa
Negative: Mismanaging the war in Iraq.

 

[Sinatra]

Popularity (contrary to what Obamabots wish to think) is not a determining factor as to whether one is doing 'good' or 'bad' in performance

Understood, but a substantial part of popularity is dependent on whether or not the voters think you are doing a good job. He was elected 4 times. If he was doing poorly, why reelect him?

So again I will ask, why do you think he was a bad president?

His approach with the 'New Deal'.. which was the worst precedent we have had towards government intervention, spending, etc, was horrible and did not do as much for the country getting out of the depression as myth would have one believe

His approach towards Germany and Japan, before we got involved in WWII, was about as inept as Carter's approach towards Iran

I would not put him as the worst.. That is Carter, bar none.... but he is not the mythological great Prez that many put him out to be

Personally my bottom 3 would be:
3) GHWB - Was a pussy, caving in to the UN. Caused us to have to fight a war later on that he should have ensured we finished.
2) Hoover - I think it is pretty explanitory
1) Carter - King moron and got pretty much nothing right

And that's right libbies.. I don't have Clinton in the bottom 3... he was bad, but not nearly as bad as these 3

Good points regarding FDR. People need to understand that American history textbooks originate via the liberal dominated academia. FDR is beloved by liberals due to his huge expansion of American government. I know first-hand the liberal influence of the textbooks that are then distributed among all American schools as I personally acted as an advisor on two national textbooks. Time and again I argued that the history being spoken within those high school level American history texts were biased. Revisionism was rampant. I met with a representative of the publishing firm and stated my case as such. Of the three pages devoted to Reagan, nearly two of those pages dealt with Iran-Contra! Reagan's two terms were given three pages - Carter's one term was give five pages, with a huge color photo and another full page of text devoted to his "Middle East peace agreement". JFK's 3 years as President were given seven pages of text and another full page of photos. Six full pages of combined text and photos were devoted to Watergate alone. Clinton's first term, including a full page devoted to the 1992 election was given four pages of text and photos. In the follow up edition to this textbook, Clinton's two terms were now awarded with seven full pages of text and photos. (A small box photo and text outlined the Lewinski mess) Reagan's two terms remained as 3 pages of text and one photo, with the same emphasis awarded to Iran-Contra - and this time the brief mention of his famous "Tear down this wall" speech had been removed entirely! Kennedy was given an additional page of text and photos, as was Carter.

...Ultimately my concerns were ignored. I demanded my name be removed from the textbook and any subsequent editions. The publisher complied. The $13,400 I received as payment was returned to them. I wanted nothing to do with their revisionism of our nation's history.

I estimate Obama will be given many pages devoted to his election and first term in upcoming American History texts, while Reagan's role will continue to be diminished.

 

[Gurdari]

This sort of implies that one man (the President) is the one solely responsible, or in charge... when it seems an administration is a collection of interests, powers and people. One of whom happens to be the public face.

 

[DiamondDave]

I hit truman, but I meant to hit Teddy.

He harbored soviet spies and referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

who is Teddy?

I certainly hope she did not mean to imply Teddy R. as the worst in the past 100 tears or so... hell... I have him as one of the three best

 

[jillian]

I estimate Obama will be given many pages devoted to his election and first term in upcoming American History texts, while Reagan's role will continue to be diminished.

Because Reagan was a horrible president who left us with a legacy of parties "playing to the base" and a fantasy that he somehow pursued policies of smaller government and lower taxes. In actuality, Reagan grew government and when he saw that the eocnomy was going to tank, unlike Baby Bush, raised taxes. (Clinton actually did a much better job making government smaller and being fiscally responsible).

And it was only because of his adherants engaging in revisionism AFTER his presidency ended that he even has half of the regard he's given.

Perhaps your problem is that truth has a liberal bias.

You know, like Roosevelt being a great president. The only ones who take issue with him are the same new deal haters who hated him then and who are now pretending that he somehow started the great depression (even though it started years before he ever took office).

What I will agree with you about is that history is a funny thing. It is written by the victors and always has been. It's why Christopher Columbus isn't universally reviled.

 

[deaddude]

This sort of implies that one man (the President) is the one solely responsible, or in charge... when it seems an administration is a collection of interests, powers and people. One of whom happens to be the public face.

The press secretary right?

 

[DiamondDave]

I estimate Obama will be given many pages devoted to his election and first term in upcoming American History texts, while Reagan's role will continue to be diminished.

Because Reagan was a horrible president who left us with a legacy of parties "playing to the base" and a fantasy that he somehow pursued policies of smaller government and lower taxes. In actuality, Reagan grew government and when he saw that the eocnomy was going to tank, unlike Baby Bush, raised taxes. (Clinton actually did a much better job making government smaller and being fiscally responsible).

And it was only because of his adherants engaging in revisionism AFTER his presidency ended that he even has half of the regard he's given.

Perhaps your problem is that truth has a liberal bias.

You know, like Roosevelt being a great president. The only ones who take issue with him are the same new deal haters who hated him then and who are now pretending that he somehow started the great depression (even though it started years before he ever took office).

What I will agree with you about is that history is a funny thing. It is written by the victors and always has been. It's why Christopher Columbus isn't universally reviled.

Funny.. don't remember anyone saying that FDR started the depression... I do accept that his policies did nothing to really get us out of it and set bad precedent for government action in the future.. if not for us getting involved in WWII, the depression would have been longer

 

[deaddude]

I estimate Obama will be given many pages devoted to his election and first term in upcoming American History texts, while Reagan's role will continue to be diminished.

Because Reagan was a horrible president who left us with a legacy of parties "playing to the base" and a fantasy that he somehow pursued policies of smaller government and lower taxes. In actuality, Reagan grew government and when he saw that the eocnomy was going to tank, unlike Baby Bush, raised taxes. (Clinton actually did a much better job making government smaller and being fiscally responsible).

And it was only because of his adherants engaging in revisionism AFTER his presidency ended that he even has half of the regard he's given.

Perhaps your problem is that truth has a liberal bias.

You know, like Roosevelt being a great president. The only ones who take issue with him are the same new deal haters who hated him then and who are now pretending that he somehow started the great depression (even though it started years before he ever took office).

What I will agree with you about is that history is a funny thing. It is written by the victors and always has been. It's why Christopher Columbus isn't universally reviled.

Funny.. don't remember anyone saying that FDR started the depression... I do accept that his policies did nothing to really get us out of it and set bad precedent for government action in the future.. if not for us getting involved in WWII, the depression would have been longer

Yes the depression would have been longer without WWII, but the New Deal did provide relief to people who were suffering from the effects of the depression. It certainly worked better than just about everything that Hoover tried. The New Deal was an analgesic not a cure.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Not being a hundred yet, I can only vote for those I remember.

LBJ, Nixon, Bush Jr. Reagan.

The 10 worst presidents to have held office - The Times US presidential rankings - Times Online

 

[Peejay]

A ton of Carter haters. No surprise there. Does anyone recall the only President to broker a lasting peace in the middle east ? Every president in my lifetime has tried and everyone has failed, save Jimmy Carter. Egypt has been at peace with Israel ever since. If each successive president could have brokered the same peace with just one of Israel's neighbors, as Carter did, that whole mess would be over now. But they have all tried and failed since.

Let's not forget, and how could we, about the enrgy policies that Carter pursued, you know, the ones that were rejected then but every politician on each side of the fence was running around with a rip off of Carter's ideas in the last election: renewable energy, reduce foreign oil dependance, solar, wind, you know, all the stuff that is so trendy and popular now. They don't dare give the guy credit for at least trying to lead us in the right direction 30 years ago. No one wanted to follow. Sure wish we would have listened to the guy then. We would have a 30 year head start on all the same crap we are struggling to cope with now. But hey, why worry with anything until it is a crisis, right ?

Jimmy Carter, April 18, 1977:

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

Oh yeah, this guy obviously didn't have a clue.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Move along, nothing worth wasting our time on here.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

None of you Carter phobes insulate your houses do you ? I mean, that would be silly. Few thought of insulation before Carter made it a priority and I would hope that you aren't sitting in a nice, warm, insulated home while bashing the man that made it the norm.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

More gibberish, isn't it ?

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

The bottom line is that Jimmy Carter was the last honest man in the White House. The last guy that actually tried to lead, rather than react. The fact that no one was prepared to follow can't be laid at his feet.

 

[rayboyusmc]

People need to understand that American history textbooks originate via the liberal dominated academia.

Oh my conservative god. How will we ever know the truth with the liberal media and now the liberal textbooks.

 

[DiamondDave]

Nah... Egypt had no other incentives like getting their asses kicked by Israel...

Carter was nothing more than a host... many bigger players in that "peace"

And Carter did a lot of talk about energy... but when it came down to anything dealing with how energy policy was to handle current energy issues, he was a buffoon.. .and with all his talk, especially considering his alternatives that he promoted were not technologically feasible for a couple decades afterwards, he really did nothing of substance whatsoever... he wanted to sink government monies, which would have made us even worse off than we were with his economic policies he did get pushed thru

And lest we not forget his handling of the hostage crisis.. the worst foreign policy work we have seen in our lifetime

Like many poor presidents, Carter talked... and many zombies went along with him when he was running and when he first started in his term.... but he was as ineffective as Harding.. with worse decisions that he made

He was by far the worst President in the 20th century

 

[rayboyusmc]

WASHINGTON - Talk about a civics lesson: A high-school senior has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and legal scholars and top scientists say the teen's criticism is well-founded.

They say "American Government" by conservatives James Wilson and John Dilulio presents a skewed view of topics from global warming to separation of church and state. The publisher now says it will review the book, as will the College Board, which oversees college-level Advanced Placement courses used in high schools.

The practice of self censorship is increasingly apparent here in Texas, where battles over textbook content are epic. For years, publishers have been held to the fire by conservatives who could make or break a textbook. But now, critics say, publishers are allowing conservative groups likely to raise the biggest fusstodiscuss content before the books are made available for public review.

"The publishers know the religious right will go after a handful of books every year and nobody wants it to be their book," says Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Austin-based Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group that monitors the religious right. "Texas has really become a testing ground, when in comes to textbooks, for what the far right is able to get away with."

For more than 40 years, Mrs. Gabler and her husband, Mel Gabler, pored over textbook publishers' offerings with a zeal and thoroughness that public school teachers could only envy.

Sphinx-like in their dedication and ferocity, they guarded the schoolhouse door against factual errors and what they perceived as left-wing bias. Usually one and the same in their view, the

Damn liberal media. I bet they are the ones who for the last 50+ years have been tryng to make "liberal" a dirty word.