Posted on 08/10/2018 7:39:33 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
I'm looking for historical ratings of Presidents from a Conservative source. Most I've read are done by "liberal" political scientists. One example? Jimmy Carter ranked higher than George W. Bush? C'mon, that's preposterous.
You’re right. Perhaps he should be #1 and Washington #2.
What do you believe Buchanan could’ve really done in the scheme of things ?
Here’s my rankings for what they are worth - impact, not necessarily that I agreed with them or their policies: 1) Lincoln (won Civil War, emancipation); 2) Washington (knew not to confront the Brit Army except on his terms, voluntary stepped down after two terms); 3) Jefferson (LA. Purchase); 4) Reagan (restored pride, the economy, destroyed the USSR); 5) FDR (kicked Nazi Germany and Japan down the pipe hole largely at the expense of Russian lives); 6) Jackson (a tail kicker and honest, with the exception I didn’t like how he treated the tribes); 7) Truman (Berlin Airlift, trusted Uncle Joe a lot less than FDR); 8) Polk (accomplished an incredible amount in four years); 9) TR Roosevelt (built up US power); 10) Trump (just so far).
The worst, in terms of the long-term damage they did to the USA: 1) LBJ (stole his first election, Vietnam, Great Society, Immigration Act, prob. involved in JFK assassination and numerous other murders); 2) GW Bush; 3)Wilson (unnecessary WW1, entanglement in international orgs); 4 Grant - mismanaged Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction; 5 Obama - corrupted government agencies of trust, moved toward state socialism.
The most inconsequential? Fillmore, Jerry Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Tyler.
If nothing else, taken a moral stand; he should have reinforced the forts; he should have begun moving troops to the border to show this was not a game.
Most important, he should have begun these measures in 1857.
BTW, Buchanan supported the “English Act” that tried to bribe Kansans into accepting slavery with more land. Disgusting.
I did a ranking early last year:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/3526248/posts?page=24#24
If he had made any moves that appeared to “threaten” the South or the institution of slavery at any point, that would’ve given the South the excuse to move on secession. If Fremont had won instead, that would’ve triggered it 4 years ahead of time. Well, nothing you don’t already know. ;-)
The English Bill could simply be viewed as a partisan action to make KS a Democrat state. It wouldn’t make much political sense for Buchanan to have championed the creation of a Republican state.
It’s gotta be Martin Van Buren...
He’s an all-time Iconic STUD of a President!
There’s even a New York street gang that named themselves after him... the Van Buren Boys...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkpnOTr8k9I
I’m tellin’ ya...
Total BS on Jackson wanting a central bank
I will never forget Carter’s interest rates. 21% prime and I was paying paying 3% over prime - 24% interest on $200K of business loans as jobs were drying up. Thank God for Reagan, I managed to survive.
Carter’s decision to oust the Shah of Iran, because he just wasn’t nice enough for the peanut farmer, paved the way for today’s middle east. Carter was an incompetent boob. While Obama was evil, I don’t think that he did as much damage as Carter.
Yeah, Bush "lied" about WMD's in Iraq. Funny how all the Democrats repeated the same "lie" long before Bush ever took office.
Sometimes I can't tell whether this is FR or DU anymore.
I blame Eisenhower for Earl Warren and William Brennan, two criminal coddlers on the SC who made it easy for murderers to kill and terrorize. The crime rate went through the roof.
I did’t say Bush lied about WMDs. I don’t think he did.
Absolutely not. You might try reading some of my, yes, seminal articles on this taken from JACKSON’S PAPERS. For all the sources-—and there are many, many-—see my book “Banking in the American South from the Age of Jackson to Reconstruction,” and my articles cited therein.
Even the preeminent Jackson historian Robert Remini wouldn’t deny it.
He ordered Treasury Sec Levi Woodbury to begin work on a central bank in 1829. His goal was to replace the BUS branches in this system with the pet banks.
It’s all there in the archives if you bother to look. Don’t believe “rightwing” myths about AJ.
Van Buren is one of the most evil presidents ever.
He FOUNDED the modern DemoKKKrat Party to protect & preserve slavery-—though, like the abortionists, he was “personally opposed.”
The South was going to move to secession anyway. All the rest was pretense.
The property rights issue was becoming too big to ignore anymore. Buchanan today would be named John McCain.
It was a joke...
Interesting groupings; I agree with most of them, but I would raise Truman, FDR and Arthur (Civil Service as it was intended to be) to the Good levels, and despite the fact that I despise him on a personal basis, I would put Clinton at “fair” (he was more of the centrist Dem on the economy, which he had to be with a Rep House, and he didn’t involve us in disastrous wars). I wouldn’t rank Harding higher than “fair” and I would probably have a new category for Lyndon Johnson, “actively evil”.
Part of the problem with Buchanan is that he acted too late; he needed to reinforce the coastal forts and internal locations where stocks of federal weapons were located and which were easily taken at the start of the war by the Confederacy; the war would have been much shorter, at far less cost to both sides.
Ooh, that’s below the belt. At worst, Buchanan was incompetent. McQueeg is an outright traitor.
FDR was the epitome of what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid in a President. Way too long to list here why he was utterly destructive, but you know the basics already (expansionist government, welfare state, re-enslaving Blacks to the Democrat party/big government, Socialist economics, conspiring to get us into WW2, allowing Soviet infiltration of the government and institutions). I rank him as or at dead last.
Truman was scarcely better and also did little to combat Soviet infiltration of our nation. His shining point was ending WW2 in the Pacific Theatre, but it is diminished by failure to rid Asia of Mao, which with China under Chiang, there likely would never have been Vietnam, 2 Koreas, et al.
I saw little with Arthur to rank him much more than subpar. While it’s not fair to paint him with the end result of the out-of-control civil service system that created the modern bureaucratic armies (leftist, of course) that infest our government, he still signed off on it (even if he didn’t know where it would necessarily lead to). If he did know, then he would deserve a ranking of “destructive.”
I also can’t bump up Clinton on economics for one good reason: it was not due to his agenda. He had government expansion and spending on par with Zero’s for perpetuity. Absent a Republican Congress and Newt, who forced his hand, there would never have been any economic success in the ‘90s whatsoever. Too many other corruption issues (nevermind his failure to get bin Laden before 9/11).
Harding was actually a VERY good President (the sole flaw being putting his trust in some corrupt officials, such as Interior Sec. Albert Fall). At the end of the Wilson regime, the nation entered a recession that could’ve easily turned far worse under bad leadership. Harding came in with huge (never-seen-since) GOP majorities and working in hand with Treasury Sec. Andrew Mellon, cut taxes, spending/government and resolved the Wilson Recession in almost record time and set the country on track to the 1920s boomtimes. The media and academia ignore Harding because he proved that a “Conservative” and austere approach to tax-cutting and gov’t spending, et al, works like a charm.
Indeed, Harding and Trump may be the two greatest economic Presidents in the history of the nation. Reagan took a bit longer, but he didn’t get the cuts in government and overall spending because of a Democrat House that was in the way. For all that has been said about Coolidge as “great” by some Conservatives, he was merely continuing the policies of Harding-Mellon that were already in place and working. Coolidge actually erred by putting a terrible left-winger on SCOTUS, his Attorney General Harlan Stone (his sole appointment), who was so well-regarded by FDR that he was elevated to Chief Justice despite being a “Republican” (about as much as Earl Warren). A big negative mark against him.
LBJ... well, without FDR/Truman to pave the way for him and Ike’s disastrous tenure that gave the Dems unholy majorities nationwide, he’d have never made it to the White House with JFK.
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.