Greatest = Reagan
Worst = Obama
I have to question his view on Taylor. First, ranking someone at 7th based on what they might have done is questionable at best. He also assumes that Taylor’s wishes regarding California and New Mexico would have been met, and that adding those states would have quickly led to an amendment banning slavery. Both are fairly large leaps. Finally, I do not believe an amendment banning slavery would have prevented the Civil War.
As far as putting Lincoln first, I believe Washington deserves that honor. He showed all subsequent presidents how to conduct themselves with restraint and honor, even if they don't always follow his lead. He played a pivotal role in the birth of America and that should never be forgotten.
I have Wilson near the bottom.
Buchanan: let the rebels steal United States property, shipping cannon and small south to be stolen. That theft enabled the 680,000 deaths from the War of the Rebellion.
Wilson: Resegregated the federal government, 100,000 casualties in WWI, and 800,000 casualties from flu due to his policies which put soldiers cheek by jowl during training.
FDR: Actively prolonged the depression, encouraged German and Italian aggression by his flattery. 50 million casualties world wide, with 300,000 war casualties. His vice president (Wallace) was a communist agent.
Truman: Handed off Korea to the communists, then changed his mind, but didn’t want to win either.
Carter and Clinton don’t even get honorable mention on my bad-o-meter.
as he should be...
How about James K. Polk?
|
|
|||
Gods |
Longer Perspectives.Dr. Felzenberg notes in his book that former Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and former Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-N.Y.) have participated in these "rating presidents" exercises without an identifiable former public official from the other end of the spectrum, "who might have been included for philosophical balance." He suggests that William Bennett, Newt Gingrich, George Schultz, the late Jean Kirkpatrick, and Milton Friedman -- all with Ph.D.s -- would have been credible contributors.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Dr. Felzenberg notes in his book that former Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and former Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-N.Y.) have participated in these "rating presidents" exercises without an identifiable former public official from the other end of the spectrum, "who might have been included for philosophical balance." He suggests that William Bennett, Newt Gingrich, George Schultz, the late Jean Kirkpatrick, and Milton Friedman -- all with Ph.D.s -- would have been credible contributors.
The book is worth a look. But Felzenberg’s scores rely a little too much on character. For example Jefferson gets bad marks for character and other, lesser Presidents get high marks. So this lowers the scores of the Presidents Felzenberg doesn’t like.
The best; Washington (could have been king, but set the standard that nobody has yet surpassed.), Jefferson, Jackson, Reagan.
The worst; FDR, Lincoln (destroyed state's rights), Wilson.
Zero is honorable mention in the worst category, but it's still early.
The most ignorant part of the article, this on Jackson; "Old Hickory" hated banks per se (was ignorant as to how they worked)
Au contraire! Jackson knew EXACTLY how (central) banks worked, which is why he hated them and fought to end the central bank of the time. (Oh how we need Jackson now!)
Ignorant historians love presidents who make history. Wise Americans like presidents who leave us the h*ll alone!