Okay, this is getting more difficult. I think I’m torn between Taft, Cleveland and Monroe.
I can’t think of any significant achievements during Cleveland’s terms except his failure to be re-elected in the middle. I’m casting my vote for Grover.
LBJ
Taft again.
Cleveland vetoed a lot of wasteful spending, was scrupulously honest and a good administrator. He was an anti-imperialist and tried to make things right with Hawaii.
I’d say he was pretty much the last anti-imperialist President.
I would have said the same thing about Polk, mate, but there was a lot more going on than naked aggression. His actions are more than defensible upon review.
I’m conflicted here. Good cases made last round for LBJ, very challenging figure. Jefferson is, with Kennedy, our most overrated president, and it may be time for him to go. Monroe doesn’t have a heck of a lot to induce support, either, and then there’s Taft and, slightly more exemplary, Cleveland. LBJ is by far the most polarizing of the group, but does that mean he’s the worst?
Sorry, but I’m holding off. Gotta think on this one.
I’m giving Johnson a pass on Vietnam in recognition of the Great Society and Civil Rights. I could be convinced to switch to Monroe, or possibly Taft or even Clinton (speaking of polarizing).
I’d have no real problem with Taft, Monroe or Jefferson going out at this point. Clinton has that whole “long national nightmare of peace and prosperity” thing going for him.
I’m not sure why he gets to skate on the Civil War. If it would have taken a brilliant plan by Zachary Taylor to head it off, shouldn’t Polk have also made an attempt?
Clinton. He wasn’t really responsible for the prosperity of the 90s, I completely disagree with his handling of the Kosovo conflict, and his failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide is unforgivable.
Clinton.
I think at this point, it’s a little early to be evaluating Clinton’s presidency, so it’s a bit of a tough call for me. But, looking at the other people on the list, I can’t really say Clinton is a better president than them, objectively. History (and I) might have a different opinion in 30 years. We will see.
LBJ
LBJ, again.
LBJ
Maybe I’m wasting my breath, but I’ll put in a word for LBJ (my first President, as it happens; I was born less than a year after he took office). Building upon JFK’s initiatives and taking them considerably farther, he led (and hectored, badgered and armtwisted) Congress into passing a breathtaking array of legislation that improved the country in substantial ways - civil rights, voting rights, poverty relief, rural aid, urban development, aid to the arts, etc. He botched the Vietnam War - and tragically, realized that even as it was happening - but overall he had a substantial record of accomplishments.
Of the remaining leaders, Jefferson, Monroe and Taft did much less and ought to get the boot before he does, IMHO.
Switch from Mckinley to LBJ.
McKinley was a Methodist not a Unitarian BTW.
Also voting for Clinton but if Polk’s threatened please switch my vote to LBJ.
Correct. Taft is the last Unitarian standing, unless you count Jefferson. We’ve already voted off the other three. And that makes me sad.
Going with LBJ again.
I don’t think you’re wasting your breath, Elendil’s Heir; you and others are obviously expert and I enjoy reading your remarks.
What if LBJ had won in 1960 and served for 8 years? Would he have been able to pass this legislation or did the JFK assassination serve as catalyst? For that matter, perhaps the Vietnam War involved a series of miscalculations which neither JFK nor LBJ would have made in an unbroken 8-year term.
For this round I’ll abstain by voting for George W. Bush again – the president who deserves multiple eliminations in a game like this.
Polk. Even though I like California.