The Most Successful One-Term President

Townhall.com ^ | December 11, 2018 | Michael Barone

[DoughtyOne]

I will give him that.

I thought that at the time, and still do.

Am I a big fan of him. Hell no.

His One World Odor comments made my jaw drop to the floor the second I heard it.

There was something really strange going on during the campaign in 1992 also. He just phoned it in. This was another moment when my jaw dropped to the floor.

I have never come up with a decent explanation for his actions during the Presidential bid in 1992.

Actions? What actions? Inactions maybe...

[zeestephen]

The Bush One “achievements” I will always remember....

(1) “Read my lips”

(2) Appointing Hard Left Supreme Court Justice David Souter

(3) His passionate support for the “Reagan Amnesty” which opened the door to massive LEGAL immigration

(4) Running the worst reelection campaign in American history

[Mr. Jeeves]

After Carter I thought that having a Southern accent was going to be a deal-breaker to voters for decades to come.

And after 9/11, it took only seven years for us to get a President with a Muslim name. The uneducated are ineducable, I guess.

[karnage]

My fundamental problem with GHWB was that he had run the CIA, which uses rather unconstitutional methods to supposedly support American interests. I thought it was, I don’t know, weird, I guess, for him to then be Commander in Chief — directly representing our constitutional interests.

Then, of course, there was “No New Taxes,” “New World Order,” and barfing in the Japanese PM’s lap.

I suppose I would have preferred his re-election to the election of Slick Willie, but fundamentally I consider the Bush family to be part of the Uniparty that I hope and pray Trump is truly opposing.

[BillyBoy]

By "one term", I think they mean Presidents who served a FULL term but either declined to run again or lost re-election. That would exclude Harding, who died BEFORE completing his single term (and if we included Harding, we'd also have to include JFK... which the entire mainstream media, most Democrats, and useful idiots FReepers would immediately rank as the "best one term President", when in reality the only award he should win is 'Most Overrated President Ever'... even moreso than Obama since numerous FReepers aren't claiming Obama as a heroic conservative figure)

Going by the "full one-term" criteria, the choices are: John Adams, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hooever, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, James K. Polk, Martin van Buren, and John Quincy Adams

From that list, this site has George H.W. Bush ranked 3rd, behind Adams and Polk:

https://www.ranker.com/list/one-term-us-presidents/mel-judson

That sound pretty accurate, though was Adams REALLY that great during his actual presidency? He's more of a legendary larger-than-life historical figure for his actions during the REST of his life (especially during the revolutionary war era), than his actual actions as President from 1797-1801. His presidency is mostly remembered for me the XYZ affair and the Alien & Sedition acts. Perhaps the biggest "accomplishment" is appointing the most landmark Chief Justice of SCOTUS in history (John Marshall), but that wasn't really noticed until after his presidency.

I'd probably rank Polk #1, with George H.W. Bush a CLOSE second (most notable actions being the Gulf War coalition that was enormously successful and a huge comeback for U.S. military victories in the post-Vietnam area, and fighting tooth-and-nail to get Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS, when the RATs were trying to turn him into Bork II. I would argue Thomas is the now the most conservative justice in the post-Scalia era)

Taft, Harrison, Hayes, van Buren, and Quincy Adams didn't leave must impact on America during their sole term (though Quincy Adams and Taft certainly had a far greater impact in their POST-presidential career).

Carter, Hooever, Pierce, and Buchanan were awful presidents who thankfully did not have more time to screw up America more (with Hooever the "least bad" of the above). Pierce and Buchanan were disasters but that was a defacto two-term presidency since James Buchanan had the same idealogy and policies as Pierce, and was basically nominated by the Dems because Pierce couldn't get re-elected, so Buchanan effectively served as Pierce's second term. That leaves that clown Jimmah Carter as the biggest one-term disaster.

Finally, there's the trio of Zachary Taylor, James A. Garfield, and William Henry Harrison, all of whom served less than a year as President, so traditionally aren't ranked for their "performance" as President as none of them really had a chance to make any impact.

[BillyBoy]

>> No conservative should consider Bush 41 anything but a failure if for no other reason than the fact he put a far-left wing justice on SCOTUS. That was inexcusable. <<

Most GOP presidents would be "failure" by that margin (and mark my words, neither of Trump's SCOTUS picks will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade). Reagan was 1 out of 3 when it came to good conservative SCOTUS appointments (O'Connor and Kennedy both sided with the left on key rulings). Even Coolidge put a horrible New Deal-loving leftist on the court, thinking he would be a good conservative.

I consider Gorsuch to be far more "inexcusable" than Souter. Souter wasn't being tapped to replace an iconic conservative justice and being presented to a GOP-controlled Senate for confirmation.

[Kazan]

I consider Gorsuch to be far more "inexcusable" than Souter.

What?! What planet are you living on? Most consider Gorsuch a Scalia clone. Why do you think he isn't conservative/originist enough? Unbelievable.

As far as Reagan goes, you left out the fact he nominated Robert Bork but Bork was borked. Kennedy nor O'Connor were anywhere near as left-wing as Souter. Both were swing-vote moderates.

Souter was as bad Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg. There is absolutely not excuse for putting up someone that liberal.

[BillyBoy]

>> Most consider Gorsuch a Scalia clone. <<

Most considered Souter the same way at the time Bush nominated him. He was called "Bork without a paper trail", a "homerun for conservatives", and "a confirmable strict constructionist" Only one of DOZENS of conservative organizations opposed him at the time. The rest immediately got on aboard with the nomination and applauded Bush for it. He was marketed as a strict constructionist rock-ribbed conservative justice and everyone who went to law school with him and knew him personally vouched for him.

>> Why do you think he isn't conservative/originist enough? Unbelievable. <<

His ENTIRE career before he was nominated, perhaps? Have you read anything about his personal life? The fact he left the Catholic Church for some ultra liberal "progressive" activist church with a Trump hating feminazi "womyn" pastor? The fact that he's a Bush crony that clerked for Anthony Kennedy? The fact he insulted Trump AFTER Trump nominated him? The fact he immediately picked a Sotomayor clerk to work for him on SCOTUS? The fact he was just the "lone Republican judge" to join the liberal bloc on a 5-4 victory for the liberal wing of the court? Are you aware he says abortion and gay marriage are super duper settled "rights?" Do you base your opinion of him being an "conservative/originist" solely on the Trump White House and conservative talking heads CLAIMING he is, as was used to "prove" Souter was because the Bush white house and conservative organizations say he was?

[Kazan]

Let me get this right -- You're making excuses for Bush 41 for not properly vetting Souter but are bashing Gorsuch whose record as record as a judge is nearly perfect.

Who gives rat's behind if Gorsuch sacrifices toads to Satan in his spare time if his rulings are conservative?

Most analysis I've seen of his rulings put him as far to the right as Clarence Thomas.

How much do you want to bet he'll bet a reliable Scalia-like justice for decades?

[BillyBoy]

>> There is absolutely not excuse for putting up someone that liberal. <<

Never happened that someone "that liberal" was presented for confirmation. You are simply engaging in history revisionism. No one knew Souter was liberal, and no Republican judge ever testifies "Put me on the court, and I promise to stab you in the back and be an activist liberal judge once I get on the court"

Souter's fan club marketed him as a strict-constructionist Bork-like judge, just without any paper trail to prove it. He was an "originalist" solely because they said he was.

Gorsuch's fan club likewise marketed him as a strict-constructionist Bork-like judge, just without any paper trail to prove it. He was an "originalist" solely because they said he was.

The main difference: Souter was being picked to replace a liberal judge, and had to get confirmed by a Democrat majority Senate. Gorsuch was being picked to replace an iconic conservative judge, and had to get confirmed by a Republican majority Senate.

And here's another interesting difference: Despite facing a majority Democrat Senate, Souter NEVER said Roe v. Wade was super duper settled law and publicly pledged to the Senate he would uphold it. But Gorsuch did. If he IS a "Scalia-like judge", then he simply lied to a Republican majority Senate and pretended to be more liberal than he actually is. I'd find it bizarre that a judge would feel the need to do that when facing a Republican Senate, given the Democrats did NOT have the votes to defeat him.

[BillyBoy]

>> How much do you want to bet he'll bet a reliable Scalia-like justice for decades? <<

Well, I'd be willing to bet you'll likely disappear from FR after you're proven wrong and I try to ping you about it, like the FReepers who swore up and down that Marco Rubio was anti-amnesty and called me racist for saying his background makes me seriously doubt that, and the FReepers who screamed at the top of their lungs that Kansas Senator Pat Roberts would morph into an Arlen Specter type RINO if he was re-elected.

Both claims were proven wrong, I was proven right, and now the people screaming the loudest are nowhere to be seen on FR.

[BillyBoy]

>> Who gives rat’s behind if Gorsuch sacrifices toads to Satan in his spare time if his rulings are conservative? <<

You claimed Bush picked a judge who was to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Again, here’s reality:

---

Initially, from 1990 to 1992, Souter voted strongly conservative. In his first year, he and Scalia voted alike close to 85% of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O’Connor about 97% of the time

---

Following your own logic, we shouldn’t have given a RAT’s behind about Souter’s personal background. He could be performing partial birth abortions as a hobby for all we care, it doesn’t matter! The White House claimed he was an “originalist” and numerous conservative groups vouched for that in 1990. He hadn’t made ANY controversial “liberal” rulings on the New Hampshire Supreme Court at all, so why complain? The fact he voted like Scalia his first two years on the court “proved” he would vote conservative “for decades to come”.

As you currently claim about Gorsuch (who’s personal background is well to the LEFT of Souter, FYI).

[Kazan]

Voting 85% with Scalia wasn't all that great to be begin with, depending on what the cases were. But, ended up being a far-left wing judge and there should no excusing that. That is on Bush, who never was never a conservative to begin with.

Gorsuch has been the second most conservative justice on SCOTUS since he was sworn in:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/empirical-scotus-how-gorsuchs-first-year-compares/

According to the scores from the end of last term, Gorsuch was the second most conservative justice on the Supreme Court after Justice Clarence Thomas. This position was helped by the fact that Gorsuch voted alongside Thomas in every decision Gorsuch participated in last term.

[BillyBoy]

>> Top five single-termers:
Polk no. 1 (engineered the contiguous continental USA, damn!)
Bush no. 2 (gotta give credit for management of the Soviet collapse; hard to stomach domestic policy)
Taft no. 3 (created the modern Republican party, saving it from becoming the progressives; also launched modern auto industry and saved the Rule of Law)
J Adams no. 4 (hard to excuse him but he did follow Washington and ceded power to Jefferson, so there)
Arthur no. 5 (he just managed things well!)

Bottom dwellers, from worst to less bad — list is a work in progress:
- Buchanan
- A. Johnson
- Jimbo
- Hoover

Jeez, this is hard to do! Easier is to name the six worst presidents in general:
Barack
FDR
Wilson
Carter
Buchanan
Clintoon

I agree strongly with nicollo's take (Polk-1st, Bush-2nd, Taft-3rd in best one-termers). I also wouldn't put Harding in the top-anything. Had he lived, I think the Teapot Dome scandal would have severely damaged Republicans in the 20s and might have ended up as the early 20th century version of Watergate (Harding could have possibly been re-elected ala Nixon '72, but THEN all hell would break loose). Thankfully, Coolidge was able to clean house and he was totally divorced from those events, so the GOP remained strong throughout the roaring 20s.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. And as for the Bushes and Clinton, essentially the same people, with some fluctuations on morals.

One worlders, screw U. S. Soverignty...

[foreverfree]

bump

[nicollo]

Thanks for reply. I forgot about Harding.

Whatever the damage of the TeaPot Dome scandal, Harding’s tax reform saved the nation from Wilson’s socialism and progressive takeover of the economy.

Without Harding’s tax and regulatory reform Coolidge had nothing. I’d put Harding just below Taft, as Taft save the Republican party that elected Harding and Coolidge. (Too bad about Hoover...)

[nicollo]

Taft, Harrison, Hayes, van Buren, and Quincy Adams didn't leave must impact on America during their sole term (though Quincy Adams and Taft certainly had a far greater impact in their POST-presidential career).

Taft saved the Republican party from progressivism. Were it not for his successful stand against TR in 1912 the party would have splintered and the progressives likely would have prevailed.

That raises all kinds of questions as to how the Dems would have responded, but we do know how Wilson did, which was to push further left.

Taft kept the party intact to oppose TR and Wilson. Such a shame about Hoover's betrayal and the FDR scam, but that was well beyond Taft. His son, Robert, reclaimed conservativism post-WWII and kept the party intact.

Quite a legacy, not counting his post-presidency and very influential writings and post as Chief SCOTUS.