Posted on 03/11/2007 11:20:43 AM PDT by mcvey
In a recent poll, more than 250 college and university history professors placed former President Bill Clinton as the best president of the last quarter entury, Ronald Reagan as the second best, followed by Jimmy Carter and then the first President Bush. (The current president was excluded since his term of office had not yet ended.) The survey also asked the historians to rank the recent Secretaries of State and Supreme Court justices as well as the relative threat to constitutional liberties posed by presidential actions.
Dr. Tim H. Blessing, Professor of History and Political Science at Alvernia College, Reading, Pa., has conducted presidential polls for many years as part of the Presidential Performance Study. Since 2001, he has been joined in ranking presidents by Dr. Anne Skleder, Associate Professor of Psychology. They asked historians, all with doctoral degrees and all teaching full-time at a college or university, to rank these four presidents as "great," "near great," "above average," "average," "below average," or "failing." Using this system, Clinton received the highest average score, though no historian ranked him as one of the "Greats." Reagan garnered a number of "great" marks, but also received numerous "below average" marks, dragging down his score and indicating that he is still a polarizing figure.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Blessing mentioned to me that he and Skleder would be giving their results last fall at a history conference and that they would be reporting on systematic biases they had found in the survey.
I know nothing about what happened but there have been no hints within the profession as to what he and Skleder said.
I just now went and looked up when they were assigned times to present the results of the survey at the Social Science History Conference. They were assigned early Sunday morning--that is called "burying a report."
Clinton...BBBBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
As big a laugh as that is.....CARTER!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!
In the words of the late Jerry Clower, 'them professors are clearly educated way beyond their intelligence'.
Emperor Billigula #1?
Only in immorality, depravity, corruption and treason.
And Jimmah STP Carter runs neck and neck with him.
Ronald Reagan's honorable name shouldn't even be in the same article with those two scumbags.
This just goes to show what I've always known. The vast majority of historians are full of sh*t.
If this is coming from university professors, then it explains the dumbed-down younger voter population.
There is so much material to scandalize about .
Read David Horowitz books. He shows how much the American Society of Historians is dominated by Marxists.
We are going to have to wait until the 60s generation dies off, then we can start rewriting all the history they wrote.
Microgood<
I agree with you. My generation truly screwed things up.
McVey
Who rates Presidents over a mere 25 year period? Silly.
And Clinton did... um, WHAT in office (besides satisfying himself sexually), EXACTLY...???
We've come to a turning point in our culture that we don't really want to face -- the liberal half of the country is literally, certifiably, insane. Detached from reality kind of insane. The kind of insane that would claim the word "marriage" is "hate speech" and rally for their own country to LOSE a war.
I guess we're at the point where if you REALLY want to educate your kids, you'll make sure they stay as far away from school as possible.
And Clinton did... um, WHAT in office (besides satisfying himself sexually), EXACTLY...???
We've come to a turning point in our culture that we don't really want to face -- the liberal half of the country is literally, certifiably, insane. Detached from reality kind of insane. The kind of insane that would claim the word "marriage" is "hate speech" and rally for their own country to LOSE a war.
I guess we're at the point where if you REALLY want to educate your kids, you'll make sure they stay as far away from school as possible.
The pin head liberals to whom he was a cultural icon. Of course history will have it's own opinion of them.
[Huh? What? I did not post that twice... honestly!]
A lot of knowledge is apparently more dangerous than a little knowledge. Clinton and Carter are without doubt among the worst Presidents in our history
Montag:
I was one of the 250 who filled out the survey. It was a legitimate survey. If Blessing and Skleder or whoever would release the whole thing, you could see that it was well-built and covered much more than the ratings of four presidents. I am fascinated by the fact that the broad range of questions were not released. As I remember there were questions on military interventions, educational policies, economic policies and even things such as personal characteristics on it.
I just sent Blessing an e-mail and will pass on his response when I get it.
McVey
Back in the mid-'90s the AHA was planning to hold its annual convention in Cincinnati, when the voters of Cincinnati adopted a resolution that the left didn't like (something along the lines of saying that gays are not entitled to special privileges). The AHA then moved the site of its convention although that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars...but they had to teach the "bigots" in Cincinnati a lesson.
followed by Jimmy Carter ....
-------
WTF????
10% unemployment
15% Inflation
20% Intrest rates
Clinton over Reagan? Uh, ok.
This could be more a tribute to the thinking process of such professors rather than a grading of administrations. It says right here that Jimmy Carter wasn'y any kind of a President, good, bad or indifferent in the last quarter century.
I remember I once read a survey of "historians" that ranked Reagan in the bottom quarter. What does this tell you? Historians are mostly libs.
Gee, it's such a surprise that the liberal university system would gush over Krinton. Most public school history books say damn near nothing about Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan but they have entire chapters devoted to Karter and Klinton, too. They're always busy filling the next generation full of crap and are succeeding grandly. Makes me sick.
They did that again over a labor dispute at one site (St. Louis?) to demonstrate solidarity with the workers.
I think the Organization of American Historians did the same thing several years later.
McVey
ROTFLOL.
The same boneheads who watched this year's Oscars and thought it was just wonderful how the celebrities just gushed over Al "School Flunk-out" Gore.
Thank you. That will be very interesting to see.
Says a lot about where the liberals want this country to be, doesn't it?
Har! That's where I stopped. I trust Wikipedia more than I trust that simple litter of socialist mice.
>>Among Recent Presidents, Clinton is Tops With Historians<<
They only include the last 25 years - thats not very many presidents.
When I belonged to the AHA in the 80's, 6000 historians attended the annual conferance. So, 250 is a small sample. A historian worth his salt would not opine on events in his own lifetime, imho. That is easy for a medievalist to say, I suppose.
That doesnt mean it wasnt filled out by mostly legitimate idiots.
People that vote this way....ar perverted nitwits
to begin with....They all wantthe killing of our
troops t stop...but they agree t kill (abor) babies..
millions of them. Clinton was bette than Carter...
Reaan was better than both of them and you can bet
on it.... JK
Yes, I remember the labor dispute in St. Louis (which may have had a racial angle to it also), but I don't remember which organization it was--I think maybe the OAH. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the AHA.
He did such a swell job with Iran and the hostage crisis and all.
He's their buddy, of course. Historians won't admit it but they are a bunch of school girl groupies with respect to WJC.
I'm quite willing to believe it was the OAH that bugged out of St. Louis. Maybe over the Adams' Mark hotel? I am too lazy to go dig it out and the last AHA conference I attended was, well, let's put it this way: ROTFLMAO. I heard a spirited defense of Michael Bellisles based on the fact that while he may have faked his data, we really don't require honest data in a post-Modern Era because no data is honest. I pointed out in one session that one of the reasons that the Fatamids were often tolerant of Christian monestaries well up the Nile River was because they couldn't do much else, the monestaries were too far away and the abbots went out of their way to maintain good government in their regions (cited the bishop of Durhamn clause as a parallel) and was met with shocked silence. Haven't been back since.
McVey
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . . . . . . . .
Historians!!??? I think not!
I call them "REVISIONISTS"!!
Why is anybody surprised ..??
Most of the "Historians" of today are extreme left wing elitists. Of course they're going to pick democrats .. I mean get real ..!!
Is my math that bad to see that Carter was not a president in the last quarter century?
2007-25=1982
Carter shouldn't have been included if the survey was 'legitimate'.
If you feel responsible for these people, say so. But don't include me in your generalized mea culpa. I may be part of the boomer generation, but I reject the guilt the children are trying to thrust upon us. They will have their own sins to atone for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.