10 Best POTUS and the 10 Worst

(Feb. 14) - "It's no surprise to see Abraham Lincoln, the man who held the nation together when it was on the brink of collapse, atop the list of greatest American presidents.
But many other presidents are judged far differently by experts than by the general public.
Bill Clinton left office with a high approval rating, but a panel of writers who focus on US politics and foreign affairs at the Times, a British publication, considered him mediocre. The president who passed progressive legislation but who saddled himself with the Monica Lewinsky scandal landed at number 23. As panelist Ben Macintyre put it, Clinton "promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone."
The panel of 8 judges ranked some modern day presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush at far ends of the spectrum. And others were close: John F. Kennedy missed the top 10 by one spot and Jimmy Carter barely managed to escape the bottom 10."

In order, the 10 Best were:

1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Eisenhower
7. Truman
8. Reagan
9. Polk
10. Wilson

And now for the 10 Worst:

1. Buchannan
2. Pierce
3. Van Buren
4. Harrison
5. Nixon
6. GW Bush
7. Hoover
8. Harding
9. Garfield
10. Fillmore

IMHO I have to agree for the most part. I do not know as much about some of these presidents as I do others, but for the most part I think they were "spot on." I think Reagan should be #4 or #5, but where he is listed is fine. I also think Nixon and GW should be a little lower.

I also think our current president has, because of circumstances, an opportunity to be on either list.

TJ ;)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Trader Jack @ Feb 15 2009, 08:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

IMHO I have to agree for the most part. I do not know as much about some of these presidents as I do others, but for the most part I think they were "spot on." I think Reagan should be #4 or #5, but where he is listed is fine. I also think Nixon and GW should be a little lower.

I also think our current president has, because of circumstances, an opportunity to be on either list.

TJ ;) [/b]

---

For the most part those were excellent observations! As for our current President, he has the opportunity to rank with the best of them. If you look at most of those ranked in the top tier, they took over during difficult times in our nations history and left the country much better than they found it. Obama clearly has that opportunity. On the other hand, if the country continues to flounder it could just as easily leave Obama at about the same level, or lower than Jimmy Carter.

As for Nixon, there is no doubt that Watergate is the first thing that historians will think of when they rank his years in office. With that said, there were accomplishments made during his administration that can not be ignored. I would personally rank him in the lower half but not in the bottom 10. I would rank Reagan in the upper half but probably not quite as high as this poll has put him.

As for Buchannan, Pierce, Van Buren and Harrison, I do not know much about any of them. But if they were worse than GW they must have been f*^king awful!! :unsure:

I too pretty much agree with the lists as they stand. However I wonder how Harrison made it on the bad Presidents list. He was only in office for about 30 days before dieing of the case of pneumonia he caught while giving his inaugural address.
He was President for so little time (and gravely ill at that) that he didn&#39;t have time to do anything, good or bad.

That pretty much tells you how bright the people are that made up this list

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (harry @ Feb 15 2009, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

I too pretty much agree with the lists as they stand. However I wonder how Harrison made it on the bad Presidents list. He was only in office for about 30 days before dieing of the case of pneumonia he caught while giving his inaugural address.
He was President for so little time (and gravely ill at that) that he didn&#39;t have time to do anything, good or bad.[/b]

---

It&#39;s possible that the Harrison listed is Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President who served a single full term from March 1889 through March 1893. He was the grandson of late William Henry Harrison, the 9th President to who you referred.

BigTex,
Who&#39;s list is this? Who is on the panel of 8 judges? Why do you consider their list definitive?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dutybound @ Feb 15 2009, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

It&#39;s possible that the Harrison listed is Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President who served a single full term from March 1889 through March 1893. He was the grandson of late William Henry Harrison, the 9th President to who you referred.

BigTex,
Who&#39;s list is this? Who is on the panel of 8 judges? Why do you consider their list definitive?[/b]

---

I just posted it with no recommendation. It was something I found online. I certainly do not consider the list to be any better or worse than any other similar list that I have ever ran across. In fact, I posted a few conflicting remarks elsewhere in this thread.

I think the panel of 8 consisted of Bigtex and his seven other handles :D

Just kidding .Don&#39;t ban him.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Htowner @ Feb 15 2009, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

I think the panel of 8 consisted of Bigtex and his seven other handles :D

Just kidding .Don&#39;t ban him.[/b]

---

HT---You obviously overlooked the obvious. You know damn good and well that had I been the decision maker, GW would have been dragging up the rear! ;)

On a related note, I found the following Associated Press article on the Houston Chronicle&#39;s webpage.

================================================== ==========


Historians: Lincoln top president; George W. Bush 36th
By NATASHA T. METZLER Associated Press
Feb. 15, 2009, 1:53PM

WASHINGTON — Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the nation&#39;s best president.

Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.

Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.

In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.

In C-SPAN&#39;s only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.

This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.

"Today&#39;s concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.

After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.

Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.

The survey was conducted in December and January. Participants ranked each president on a scale of one, "not effective" to 10, "very effective," on a list of 10 leadership qualities including relations with Congress, public persuasion and moral authority.

Guilty as charged,sir.

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12...lincoln-racist/

More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States.

Lincoln’s views may have started to change once he saw how bravely black troops fought for the Union cause, but even at the time of his death, he was willing to leave the fate of emancipated slaves in the hands of bigoted state legislators. “Whether Lincoln ever went beyond being an anti-slavery white supremacist,” Fredrickson writes, “is a question that is difficult to resolve.”

So should we tear down his memorial on the National Mall? Only if we are ready to impose a present-day absolutism on a realistic and deeply empathetic politician who took matters one careful step at a time to try to keep them moving in the right direction. Fredrickson closes his book by quoting from Douglass’s 1876 address, and here Douglass got it exactly right: “Viewed from genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”

FDR should be at the top of the 10 best list, and GW at top of the worst.

FDR got this country back on her feet with his many plans and work programs to help our economy. It seems that our govt is in a similar situation now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kay Sommers @ Feb 16 2009, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

FDR should be at the top of the 10 best list, and GW at top of the worst.[/b]

---

I agree with you on both counts! ;)

What about Carter?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AlexisSoftTouch @ Feb 16 2009, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

What about Carter?[/b]

---

Carter appointed Vocker and should get more credit for the economic recovery of the eighties and Reagan less. I give Reagan credit for keeping us out of war.....when they blew up the Marine barracks he cut and ran ....just like he should have, we had no business over there. Whoaaaa sorry for the rant....Carter was allot better than he gets credit for. Much more a visionary than Reagan or Clinton as was Bush Sr.

If you are in favor of a pro-active President & a stronger executive branch, you need to find room for Andrew Jackson the "good" list someplace. As Meecham (sp?) points out in his recent book, Jackson did MUCH to shape the modern presidency. He was the first President to use the veto power to influence/control the legislative agenda. He "stared down" South Carolina on the question of nullification. He had a reputation of being a "madman with his finger on the button" (a la Nixon) but it was often an act that was a prelude to compromise.

His policy regarding the "indigenous peoples" (read, American Indian) was appalling & his clash with Biddle over the National Bank may have been counter-productive. However, even when doing something "bad" he established the principle of executive action.

As for the "bad" list... it&#39;s just TOO easy. So MANY clowns, so LITTLE time... :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Feb 16 2009, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Carter appointed Vocker and should get more credit for the economic recovery of the eighties and Reagan less. I give Reagan credit for keeping us out of war.....when they blew up the Marine barracks he cut and ran ....just like he should have, we had no business over there. Whoaaaa sorry for the rant....Carter was allot better than he gets credit for. Much more a visionary than Reagan or Clinton as was Bush Sr.[/b]

---

If Carter should get credit for anything, it should be for making Reagan look good. Carter racked up a misery index (unemployment rate+inflation rate) of 21.98% in 1980. Inflation was around 16%, and the interest rate was around 22%. How&#39;s that for a triple double? He should play for the Rockets. And you think that Jimmy deserves some of the credit for the recovery? I guess we&#39;ll never know how four more years of the Carter administration would have turned out, he lost a narrow election by well over 400 electoral votes. We do know that Reagan turned things around, and came out looking like a star compared to Carter&#39;s incompetence.

Giving Carter credit for the economic recovery is like giving him credit for winning the arms race based on his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. How many days did Carter sit around with his head up his ass while American citizens were held hostage by a backwater shit hole of a country? I believe the correct answer is 444 days. Jimmy Carter is, was, and always will be, a national disgrace.

"...putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy and FDR in the same category as Reagan or Washington is like a teenage girl ranking the Jonas Brothers with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles as the three greatest bands of all time."

But wait: there&#39;s more: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=89294

don t

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Don T. Lukbak @ Feb 18 2009, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

"...putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy and FDR in the same category as Reagan

But wait: there&#39;s more:

don t[/b]

---

The numbers don&#39;t lie......but you can go on believing the Reagan bs. I stand by my claim tha Volker was a smart appointment by Carter and Reagan had the good sense to keep in office.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan&#39;s objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums...d/2420201.aspx

Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dbaucheree @ Feb 18 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Giving Carter credit for the economic recovery is like giving him credit for winning the arms race based on his handling of the Iran hostage crisis.[/b]

---

you&#39;re right Reagans Arms for hostages and then drug dealing were just great for this country..


http://www.mia.org.il/archive/861106lat.html

The Reagan Administration, using an Israeli-operated supply line set up through highly secret negotiations with the regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, last year began supplying U.S.-made missiles and weapons parts to Iran in exchange for Iran&#39;s aid in freeing Americans held hostage in Lebanon, government sources said Wednesday.

The arrangement, in which the Tehran government received planeloads of military equipment critical to Iran in its lengthy war against Iraq, led to freedom for three hostages held by pro-Iranian extremists and, until this week, appeared to promise further releases, sources said.

The arms shipments, begun last year with the personal approval of President Reagan after secret meetings between two top-level White House officials and Iranian representatives, led to the release last Sunday in Beirut of American University Hospital director David P. Jacobsen, who had been held by Islamic Jihad (Islamic Holy War), a group of Shia Muslim fundamentalists allied with Iran.

BUT WAIT THERE"S MORE......

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua&#39;s Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb&#39;s series, "The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves many questions unanswered.

This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials, memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers. Court and hearing transcripts are also included.


Special thanks to the Arca Foundation, the Ruth Mott Fund, the Samuel Rubin Foundation, and the Fund for Constitutional Government for their support.

And such a visionary that Reagan was. He and his followers have done to history what he did to economics.....first voodoo economics and now voodoo history. When are you guys going to quit listening to Rush and Sean for your history/economics lessons? False beliefs lead to continued ignorant behavior. For example to appease Huehueteotl, the fire god and a senior deity, the Aztecs sacrificed humans. They had a incorrect belief system. You guys need to learn the actual cause-effect of Reagan&#39;s policy&#39;s.

Keep talking Ragan up boys I can bring facts that shoot your hero down all day long. I liked the guy, he meant good but I do not like him enought to suspend reality. Sean Hannity and Rush Slimebaugh make money off spreading the Reagan myth.....I am not sure what you guys get out of spreading that manure!

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...3/prodigal-sun

It was the winter of 1981 and the country was just beginning to feel the sharp edges of the Reagan revolution. Denis Hayes, head of the fledgling Solar Energy Research Institute, was walking through the halls of the Department of Energy when an acquaintance came up to him and said, "Has Frank lowered the boom on you yet?" The Frank in question was an acting assistant secretary, but the boom, it turned out, was falling from the top. President Reagan had once been General Electric&#39;s most camera-ready tout, and his administration viewed alternative energy with open scorn. "They&#39;re going to kill your study," the gray-suited informant warned Hayes, before slipping down the corridor.

The study, a yearlong investigation by some of the nation&#39;s leading scientists, provided a convincing blueprint for a solar future. It showed that alternative energy could easily meet 28 percent of the nation&#39;s power needs by 2000. The only thing that solar and wind and other nonpolluting energy sources needed was a push, the study concluded -- the same research funding and tax credits provided to other energy industries, and a government committed to lead the way to reduced reliance on fossil fuels.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Don T. Lukbak @ Feb 18 2009, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=89294

don t[/b]

---

Please tell me you just did not provide a link to a Ann Coultier article. You think she is objective? She is another snake oil salesman making money off the flock, just like Sean and Rush.

Please let&#39;s have Ann show us where Reagan actually cut taxes for the wealthy and replaced that with taxes for the not so wealthy. That is exactly what he did. Please tell me how this makes him a great President. Please tell me how the Saudia&#39;s flooding the market with oil driving the Soviets to the poor house is a feather in Reagan&#39;s hat as far as the arms race.

Reagan cut taxes one year and then raised them for the next six years and increased spending and spawned a whole generation of conseratives to totally get wrong what he actually did and for the last twenty years all we have heard is cut taxes and not once has there been a corresponding spending cut. He was a great leader as are most snake charmers.....but for the incorrect beliefs he has instilled in his followers he should rank at the very bottom of the list.

No more posting for me today......

Reagan had no idea what it meant to be President. To him he was just an actor playing the part. Sort of like the Truman Show but for real.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Feb 19 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Please tell me you just did not provide a link to a Ann Coultier article. You think she is objective? She is another snake oil salesman making money off the flock, just like Sean and Rush.

Please let&#39;s have Ann show us where Reagan actually cut taxes for the wealthy and replaced that with taxes for the not so wealthy. That is exactly what he did. Please tell me how this makes him a great President. Please tell me how the Saudia&#39;s flooding the market with oil driving the Soviets to the poor house is a feather in Reagan&#39;s hat as far as the arms race.

No more posting for me today......[/b]

---

Awww, man, why you want me to say I didn&#39;t when you know I did? Typical. Here&#39;s what I love about ol&#39; skinny ass Ann: I love the way she makes liberal girly men squirm.

Ronaldus Magnus just about put my ass in the poor house during the 80&#39;s when he .. ahem .. caused the House of Saud to beggar the Soviet Union. No shit, because of Reagan I went from a semi-big fortune to a frog hair from bankruptcy, just like a bunch of other Texans. And, just like most of them, I admire him for it. Giving up my opulent lifestyle was a tiny sacrifice for bringing an end to an empire based on a lie and sustained by terror. I&#39;d do it again.

don t

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Don T. Lukbak @ Feb 19 2009, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Awww, man, why you want me to say I didn&#39;t when you know I did? Typical. Here&#39;s what I love about ol&#39; skinny ass Ann: I love the way she makes liberal girly men squirm.[/b]

---

Thats Arnold......Ann and her Adam&#39;s apple give conservatives a woody. She make&#39;s ya&#39;ll get in touch with your feminine side. lol


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Don T. Lukbak @ Feb 19 2009, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quote:

---

Ronaldus Magnus just about put my ass in the poor house during the 80&#39;s when he .. ahem .. caused the House of Saud to beggar the Soviet Union. No shit, because of Reagan I went from a semi-big fortune to a frog hair from bankruptcy, just like a bunch of other Texans. And, just like most of them, I admire him for it. Giving up my opulent lifestyle was a tiny sacrifice for bringing an end to an empire based on a lie and sustained by terror. I&#39;d do it again.

don t[/b]

---

Well then you musta of hated ole Bushy boy running up the price of oil and consolidating Putin power.

But you answer not the point that Reagan did not cut taxes like you gents on the right like to think. Now he did cut taxes for the rich and raised it on the middle class for a net zero cut.

Our arming the Talabian to fight the Soviets sure did not work out like we had hoped. While it did help their demise it sure came back to bite us in the ass.

Life is allot more complex than you guys like to make it out to be.


Reagan&#39;s biggest faux was getting ya&#39;ll to spend without regard to the end effect. To ya&#39;ll the end justifies the means. We now have a nation of spoiled right wing brats. Ya&#39;ll want generational wealth (a form of welfare). Welfare being taking a hand out without having worked for it.

Any list that does not have Carter in the top 5 worst presidents of all time is a worthless list.