I just want to say thank you to the posters for helping remind me of how little I know about so much … especially history. I’ve learned a lot by your responses.
People seem to be blaming him. Perhaps they (and [gasp!] I) are wrong. Did he influence Repubs in the Senate to not ratify, or speak out against it, or something?
No, the vote was unanimous against Kyoto. Democrats and Republicans alike rejected it.
This si not something to be takenon haphazardly. I confess I have not giventhe question a great deal of thought.
I disagree with the posters who say the recent presidents should be off the table. History often has a way of over-objectifying things. Every one of the presidents mentioned previously has their staunch defenders.
I say we start with what’s in front of us:
Who’s worse, Clinton or GWB? Granted, GWB’s presidency has another year, and he COULD pull it out of the bag, but it looks less and less likely.
Neither is wonderful. Both are fairly corrupt liars. Clinton at least though, managed only to make himself an embarassment to the presidency. Bush the Younger has managed to make America an embarassment to the world, so my list, so far, starting with the worst, is:
- George W. Bush
- William Jefferson Clinton
Now, to move on.
Who’s worse, George W. Bush, or George Herbert Walker Bush?
That’s a toughie. Two sides of the same coin, in fact. Both did inherit precarious conditions from their predecessors, but both also handled them very poorly.
I think Daddy Bush gets the nod, because when the Soviet Union collapsed, he did absolutely nothing to show that his America was still Truman’s America, one which quickly let bygones be bygones and built up its former enemies in the name of keeping the world right. Russia and its former satellite states are still shaky on their feet, twelve years later, when it could have been a modern shining example of how America treats its former foes. It all gets laid at Elder Bush’s feet.
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- William Jefferson Clinton
Reagan beats out all three, in my opinion. I did not believe for one second that the release of the Iranian hostages on his inauguration day was a simple coincidence, and I was only 13. Shame on you if you though otherwise. The rest of his presidency was one long slide from there. I never saw many homeless on the street before his presidency, but they are a continual presence since. He brought “trickle down economics” out of its pre-Depression mothballs, and gave it another run (which will cause him to beat out Coolidge). Nearly destroyed this nation, in my opinion.
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- William Jefferson Clinton
Carter was pretty bad, but I’ll give him kudos for being the best ex-president ever, and the fact that he actually managed to oversee a mid-east peace treaty that lasted, more than the other four ever managed to do.
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- William Jefferson Clinton
- James Earl Carter
I’ll have to think further about the others…
Ford is worse than Carter, if for nothing other than pardoning Nixon.
Ford managed to lose a war, but GWB is managing to louse up two simultaneously, so he wins.
The question then, is: who’s worse, Ford or Clinton? Ford was basically a bumbler, whereas Clinton is a manipulator.
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- William Jefferson Clinton
- Gerald R. Ford
- James Earl Carter
There’s a lot of mileage to be gained out of saying Nixon was the worst ever, but GWB has done every stupid thing Nixon did, only he has done it AGAIN and WORSE. And at least Nixon left a trail to follow.
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- Richard Milhous Nixon
- William Jefferson Clinton
- Gerald R. Ford
- James Earl Carter
LBJ managed to take a South Vietnamese Civil War and turn it into an international and domestic crisis, so he’s up there, but hasn’t beat out GWB for gung-ho bullshit (We have GOT to stop electing Texans!)
Nixon managed not to end Vietnam after campaigning with a “secret plan” to do so, so he beats out LBJ as well.
LBJ or Clinton? I think LBJ did more to promote an “Imperial America” more than Clinton did, so:
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- Richard Milhous Nixon
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
- William Jefferson Clinton
- Gerald R. Ford
- James Earl Carter
Kennedy? His main contribution was to inspire America, whereas the defining characteristic of Carter’s administration was malaise, so:
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- Richard Milhous Nixon
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
- William Jefferson Clinton
- Gerald R. Ford
- James Earl Carter
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Ike? As much as he warned us against the “military-industrial complex” on his way out, he did more to create it than any other president, with such shining examples as taking over Guatemala in 1954 on behalf of the Chiquita Banana company (then United Fruit), and destabilizing South American countries to the point that we are now blessed with a hoard of illegal immigrants, fleeing what he started. Plus his complacent America, created out of nothing, is the shining example of society that today’s conservatives long for a return to.
- Ronald Wilson Reagan
- George Herbert Walker Bush
- George W. Bush
- Richard Milhous Nixon
- Lyndon Baines Johnson
- William Jefferson Clinton
- Dwight David Eisenhower
- Gerald R. Ford
- James Earl Carter
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Dear President Jackson:
Just so’s you know, lots of people in the 21st Century just hate you. And not just because you founded the Democratic Party, either.
Yours,
Scott Dickerson
I WARNED you people about voting for rich Texans for President.
I’m a Texan. I KNOW these things.
I’m also rather surprised that no one’s mentioned Reagan’s handling of the AIDS crisis. His refusal to address the issue until it had already reached epic proportions, and his utter insanity in refusing to approve any kind of funding for developing a method of BLOOD TESTING, much less a treatment or cure, killed a great many people.
I was amazed at the speech he made in which he remarked that as far as AIDS was concerned, “Don’t medicine and morality teach the same lesson?”
Well, durned if I can see how medicine OR morality can prevent anyone from getting infected with HIV as a result of a blood transfusion of tainted blood that MIGHT have been prevented if Reagan had allowed some funding to develop a method of determining if stored blood was safe or not.
…and this isn’t even mentioning his other high crimes and misdemeanors while in office.
Nixon: a fine politician, a good President… but an utter rat of a man. The guy who finally destroyed America’s belief that any politician could have any kind of morals or integrity. Ultimately, I think the harm he did by his weaselly manipulations during Watergate (…trying to fire the Attorney General who was investigating him? What the hell was Nixon thinking?) outweighs the good he did, or might have done, while in office.
I was just reading about Lincoln the other day, and three items jumped out at me:
-
Lincoln was opposed to the Mexican-American War as he believed it wasn’t fought to defend the US, but rather that the President decided to make the first strike. He was even quoted as saying that it was a dangerous step for a President to start waging unprovoked wars.
-
Lincoln was criticized at the time for curtailing all sorts of freedoms and rights in the name of winning the Civil War.
-
Lincoln wasn’t going to war to end slavery, but rather to curtail the spread of slavery to new territories. Even after the much vaunted Gettysburg address, Lincoln said he would allow the southern states to keep their institution if they were to cease the war and rejoin the union by January 1st, 1864. It was only after the deadline passed that ending slavery all across the country was part of the equation.
In my opinion, Lincoln was by no means a perfect leader, but he didn’t want the union to dissolve on his watch. He was against the institution of slavery, but also didn’t feel that he had the right to dictate to the southern states whether or not they could have it. Mind you, his support of freedom for the slaves didn’t extend to blacks and whites living as equals in all respects, but that line of thinking was pretty radical in those days.
I think the previous administrations, (Fillmore/Pierce/Buchannon) were at best trying to keep the country together by compromise, and their inaction at best delayed the eventual war. They were playing a balancing game between north and south interests, in the end pleasing no one side very much.
For what it’s worth, the divisiveness in the Democratic party about the issue led to the success in 1860 of Lincoln and the Republican party, as the Democrats were running three different candidates. His election was the straw that broke the camel’s back, as seven states seceeded between the election and his innauguration, while Buchannon did nothing.
Lincoln may be even more highly thought of, (if that’s possible), had he lived to see the end of his second term, as he sought to make reconstruction as easy and painless as possible…
:rolleyes: Sigh!
That’s not what I was saying. I was talking about the size/role of government.
FDR was a major figure in changing this country from one that, overall, had little government intervention in the lives of the general populace to one where the government has it’s fingers into everything. One that forces upon the populace social programs that not only create dependance, but also rides the backs of an otherwise prosperous people with huge taxes.
-
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
nuff said - On false pretences that Iraq was a danger to the world? That is an opinion, isn’t it? Or false pretences of having WMDs? Didn’t Bill Clinton bomb Iraq’s Chemical warfare labs? Hasn’t the UN stated many times that Iraq has had WMDs.
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq (just interesting reading) - Without UN backing. When did we become a subject of the UN?
- Any stats on Civs killed? And how the hell were we supposed to stop that looting? Those archives are worth more than human lives???!
- See #1
- Withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty? Excuse my French,(or is that now politically incorrect?
) but WTF?! Seriously! How many countries have signed the Kyoto Treaty(and are in compliance with it?!!?) Name them. And the US Senate Unanimously voted against ratifying the treaty. Republicans, Democrats and Independents. - Frittering away our allies? The way France and Germany have been headed, this was going to happen sooner or later, GWB or not. So we should do something because our allies want us to do it? Give into peer pressure, that’s a noble.
- Are you really putting Sexual Education on your list?
- Loss of jobs… Capitalism is cyclical. we were only in a recession for two quarters. You can’t always blame a president for what happened in the economy during his term/s. Economic policy is not immediate, cause and effect aren’t alway that easily attributed.
As a libertarian, it’s hard to resist nominating FDR for worst ever.
With LBJ getting a close second and GWB third for adding yet another entitlement, as if taking 40% of Americans’ income wasn’t enough.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned Lex Luthor yet.
Actually, the US didn’t join in the fun until several years after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. Germany was able to pacify Wilson by promising to agree to a set of restrictions on sub warfare, which they held to for another two years. Even the announcement in 1917 that they were returning to unrestricted sub warfare, however, wasn’t enough to provoke the US into full committment. It wasn’t until the Zimmerman telegram was intercepted and leaked by the British (rather cleverly, so as not to reveal that they could read German communications), that the US realized that they were going to be dragged into the war whether they wanted it or not; Germany was offering an alliance with Mexico in return for the latter’s disrupting US military assistance in Europe by attacking through Texas. The telegram also contained requests for Mexico to persuade Japan to join in and launch an attack on Hawaii and the west coast. Faced with a confirmed threat of direct attack on their own soil, taking the fight to the enemy and joining the war in Europe seems to me to be the best strategy.
I don’t think Jackson or Grant deserve mention here.
Grant, while a failure as a President, was a failure not because of any personal flaw, but because he really did trust his subordinates. As it turns out, they had their hands deep in the till, and I’m sure that really hurt him. He was used, but there wasn’t really anyway he could have known. In any event, he did a lot of really good things, and would have gone down in history as a great Pres if some of his pals hadn’t been stabbing him in the back.
Jackson, well, we’ve had whole threads on Jackson (Go search for them in GD yourself). Suffice it to say there’s deccent evidence he was a god man, and he certainly made an effective president.
Sponsors Ease Bill on Gases That Warm the Climate
New York Times, October 2, 2003
Short quote: “The original plan and the revised version are far less aggressive than the limits in the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty rejected by President Bush, which would require industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012. This would be the first Senate vote on a global-warming issue since 1997 when it adopted a resolution, 95 to 0, that said the United States should not sign any international agreement on climate change that would seriously harm the American economy.” (emphisis added)
EU alarmed as Putin backtracks on Kyoto
Guardian Unlimited (UK), September 30, 2002
Short quote: “Mr Putin added that more research into climate change was needed. Such a comment will cause delight in Washington, which has been trying to persuade the Russian president to join George Bush in repudiating the treaty.” (emphisis added)
For some time, I’ve been seeing causual references like these to President Bush having rejecting or repudiating the Kyoto treaty. Hence my listing of this as one of the bad things he’s done.
I note, however, that the Times artile refers to the Senate having adopting a resolution that the US “should not sign any international agreement on climate change that would seriously harm the American economy.” If they did this to keep us out of the Kyoto treaty, then it would seem they also had a role.
kgriffey79, dude, you’re citing Rush freaking Limbaugh?
Rexdart, please tell me you’re kidding about the British staging the Lusitania sinking.
Leave him alone! He rebuilt Gotham. Damn Luthor haters.
I’ll put in my two cents on pulling Jackson out of the pile. Nothing I have read prior to your post has even hinted at anything he has done that is deserving of being called the worst president ever.
The Cherokee Removal? Sure it was a bad chapter in American history, but it wasn’t the doing of Jackson. It really was the will of the majority of people, especially in the affected areas. Do we condemn Washington, Jefferson, etc. because they were president while we had slavery?
The bank? We’re now calling someone a horrible president becuse he stands up for a deeply held belief? Do we consider the fact that he wanted nothing to do with the decision, it was thrust upon him by Biddle (the head bank honcho) and Henry Clay - perennial losing presidential candidate from the other party. They made Jackson veto the bank bill to use it in the upcoming elections. As for the outcome of the bank, it was as much a result of the horrible speculation economy of the times.
Besides, was the bank truly a constitutional act to begin with? Can anyone point to where the constitution authorizes it?
Perhaps we ought to look at his reception upon taking office. There are accounts from the period extant that describe the tremendous reaction and acclaim Jackson had, and the huge outpouring by the populous…I’m not claiming that popularity is a measure of greatness, but it goes a long way against the idea of a bastard…
Wow, lots of good argument here, but it seems many are judging past actions with 21st century morality: Jackson, johnson maybe even Lincoln. We got a biography of that drunkard Pierce, and many today seem to disfavor GW (he definitely will get an honerable mention by me), boy, how many are left to roast?
And I’ll add yet another to the list (unless he has already been added and I missed him):
James K. Polk
Oh yes, this second-stringer “dark horse” bridges the gap between 21st century morality: don’t forget manifest destiny! And 21st century stupidity: Let’s overthrow a mexican Dictator (General Mariano Paredes) and replace him with… A mexican Dictator (Santa Ana). The bonus: We get to fight Both! Yes, Mr Polk helped Santa Ana raise an army, invade Mexico with U.S. ships in support (think, “Bay of Pigs” but more successful - hey he did get that right) and then watched him (Ana) turn about and attack the U.S. forces, fantastic!
I do not think any other president can claim financing both sides of a war (well, while still in office anyway). This takes a special skill.