I have read that historians consider Truman to have been a great President, and yet his popularity was at 32% when he left office. It is difficult to know how someone will be judged. For one thing, information has a way of coming to the surface over a period of many years.
I can’t imagine Ronald Reagan’s face on Mt. Rushmore when FDR’s face is not there. He was elected four times, brought this country out of the Great Depression and throught almost all of WWII. He was also loved by the people.
I think that it is charm and personality that are unenduring and unremarkable in the end. That is not what makes a President great.
Actually, I think Rushmore should be left as it is. Anything else would be too devisive.
I have no objection to President Reagan on money. Especially if Grant is removed. He is historically seen as a very weak President.
Sorry, I’ve wandered off. I didn’t care for Reagan as a President, but I was charmed by his personality all of my life. I avoided all coverage except for the funeral at the Catherdral and the sunset service which was extremely moving. I paid my respects because I thought they were due. I will do the same for all former Presidents. I don’t think I could do that for our current President, but I would not be disruptive or disrespectful during the period of mourning.
Actually, I think anything else would take the rest of the mountain down, and then NOBODY would be on Rushmore!
Seriously, I don’t think that any president should be deified, just because he died. You can be respectful, and such, but I also think that the truth should not be ignored. (I remember when Nixon died, in my history class all we discussed was detente and China and everything, with nary a mention of Watergate).
I don’t know- you have a point. But GWB was able to put partisanship aside and say some nice things about Clinton for the unveiling of his portrait in the White House. Even if Clinton keeled over tomorrow, I’m betting the opposition will stow their partisanship and be perfectly civil for the mourning period.
Actually, I must say that I’ve seen/felt a marked decrease in bashing lately from the conservatives on the board directed towards liberal and/or Democratic politicians.
Understandably, given that both Congress and the White House are under their control - the more years that go by that way, the harder it is to blame the other guys, although they’re still trying. Wait 'til the Kerry Administration starts, though.
Well, if you wanna talk about the propensity of specific members to post off-color comments, we can take a look at who said they wanted to piss on Reagan’s grave. But I’m pretty sure AHunter3 is addressing the overall trend.
What the hell, though. Let’s just toss in a bunch of ad hominens that help illustrate the point the OP is making. And one I tried to make with you with apparent little success very recently.
And I note, once again, that the preponderance of the “fightin’ words” posts in this thread have been made by the liberal contingent.
What the hell? 2008 is going to be the great Jeb Bush - Hillary Clinton showdown. The RW yammerers wouldn’t just make that up, would they?
Examples? Or just pouting?
True, but it’s not like he had any real choice in the matter, not with the cameras rolling during an election year. Sincerity isn’t hard to fake for a veteran gladhander like Dubya, of course.
Personally, I take issue with your assumption that they are equivalent in the ways that they are each less than exemplary men and presidents. They aren’t. Not everything comes down to a matter of opinion, through the lens of one’s own bias.
Reagan’s administration was among the most criminal in history, if indictments are any guide. Clinton’s was pretty clean, apart from that whole blowjob bullshit. And given the microscope and kleig lights focused on him and his administration, and the whole lotta not much that was turned up anyway, I’d venture the opinion that Clinton’s presidency was among the most honest, forthright, and aboveboard in history.
The value of each president’s policies is more open to debate, but on these matters alone, I think I have grounds to take issue with your unspoken assumptions, and I do.
Having said that, I think every elected president (ahem) has and will deserve a certain amount of respect and honor upon their death, including Reagan and Clinton and Nixon and Bush I, etc. I don’t hold with lies and pretense, however.
But seriously, folks, as regards the OP, there is a line that most recognize when someone dies. Comments like “the econony did well during his tenure, although there were several prominent scandals” are appropriate. “I am glad he died, I hope it was painful, and I hope some one digs up his corpse and sodomizes it” are clearly not. Most Dopers, both liberals and conservatives, realize that, and (for the most part) abide by it. Some dishonorable exceptions, but mostly from those who behave like assholes on a regular basis anyway.
When Clinton goes to meet his Maker, I suspect the same rules will apply. As they did with Nixon, and for mostly the same reasons. It is the rare President about whom nothing good can be said. Even for a President who achieved something, but had his second administration more or less paralyzed by scandal and cover-up. But as Guinastasia says, no President should be deified.
But I reserve the right to laugh until I lose bladder control if Stoid posts foolishness like the above, about Clinton or anyone else.
I’ve said it before, I don’t think most true-blue liberals were enamored of every one of Clinton’s policies. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a limp-wristed half-step in integrating gays into the military, his support of NAFTA was a total pander to the fiscal conservatives, and the DOMA was an afformentioned train wreck.
It would not surprise me one iota if you took all of Clinton’s policies, gave each one a 1-10 scale of left/right ideaology, and then averaged them out, you’d end up with something in the middle. Calling Clinton a “liberal” is as misleading as calling George W. Bush a micro-manager.
But if we exclude anything and everything connected with Clinton’s sexual harassment, alleged rape, and all the lying under oath, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and assorted related sleaze connected with his various bimbo explosions, all we have left is Travelgate, Filegate, Nannygate, pardons for bribes, illegal campaign contributions, secret commission meetings, lying about the budget, lying about subpoenaed documents, and I am sure none of these count for reasons you haven’t made up yet.
Is that more than five? Hard to keep track with Clinton.
Even if all of these were true and significant, Clinton is still a piker compared to Bush. Putting out no-bid contracts for your vice-president’s company? Now THAT’S crooked.
