Posted on 09/13/2005 6:11:52 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
When you hear historians talk about LBJ's presidency they almost always include an admiring aside about the job he did as senate majority leader -- it's almost like saying that the man was a great pro quarterback because he was a great collegiate running back. The qualifications for the jobs are very different.
I think the dominoe effect will be better. My opinion is that we establish a functioning free society in the belly of the beast. Already we have seen this bear some fruit. It will take time, but it will work. If we left Germany or Japan to their own devices instead of force feeding them a democratic system, the world would be very different today.
The part that you do not get is...the vast majority of them do not know HOW to be free. Had we removed SH and marched on, Zarqawi, or someone like him, would have assumed leadership. We would have had the "killing fields of Iraq" to show for the effort.
As it stands now, a country is rising up that is being shown what freedom means and how to live in liberty. Do not be deceived, the Iraqis are grateful to America for freeing them and helping them establish a free and democratic society. Their neighbors are considering their options as they are now surrounded.
"If he succeeds in fundamentally changing things in the Islamic world, he'll be worthy of greater esteem"
There is the key! You cannot justly rate a president until it is all over and done with. He is still in the process of doing.
And like you said it is the final results that counts - Success is good - Failure ....
The president's #1 job is to LEAD - to provide the moral direction of the nation. He has no more power than that. (do not count E.O. abuse as a legal power). All law making resides in the congress - SCOTUS is supposed to keep everyone honest. Or so it should be as the Constitutional Republic was formed.
In a democracy? Stalin and Lenin loved democracies.
I remember how the libs bashed Ronald Reagan every day of his eight years in office. I remember how the liberal idiots in Hollyweird, including such shining intellects as Sean Penn, made fun of him when he had Alzheimer's. And I remember how, when President Reagan died, all the liberals tried to hijack his memory.
President Bush will weather all the garbage thrown at him by the stupid moonbats. For his leadership during a very adverse time for our country he deserves to be right up there with President Reagan.
Carter was DEFINITELY down there with the worst . . .
It can be argued that Harding and Buchanan were inept, but passive, and therefore the damage caused was self limiting. Carter, on the other hand, aggressively pursued policies that were directly detrimental. In 4 short years he cause a lot of damage, IMO (lost Iran, Afghanistan, loose money then tight, stagflation, high interst rates, inflation, malaise) A very busy, self important incompetent.
If it wasn't for Watergate, I don't think that Carter would have won..
<<<<
It can be argued that Harding and Buchanan were inept, but passive, and therefore the damage caused was self limiting. Carter, on the other hand, aggressively pursued policies that were directly detrimental. In 4 short years he cause a lot of damage, IMO (lost Iran, Afghanistan, loose money then tight, stagflation, high interst rates, inflation, malaise) A very busy, self important incompetent.
>>>>
What's worse is, unlike the other ex-Presidents, this guy refuses to retire quietly. He inists on officiously inflicting his opinions on us even as we speak. From the war on terror to fiscal policy to injecting himself in foreign policy, THERE HE IS ! One wonders when he'll just go into the sunset never to return, or simply stick to building houses.
Carter also gave away the Panama Canal, 3 Mile Island, etc...
All these years of re-writing history and demonizing Nixon it is remarkable that Nixon still outranks Carter (the greatest ex-President, dontcha know).
If it had not been for Ford's gaffe about Poland during the debate, and Dole's crack about "Democrat wars," Ford might have won in 1976...it wouldn't have taken much of a shift of popular votes to swing enough electoral votes his way for a victory.
Some of the Whigs were slaveholders (e.g. Zachary Taylor), so they couldn't take an unambiguous anti-slavery stand. The irony is that if the Liberty Party (anti-slavery) had not run a third-party effort in 1844, Clay would have won, and all of American history would have been different. Without the Mexican War and the territories acquired in 1848, the issue of slavery in the territories wouldn't have torn the country apart in the 1850s as it did.
Unlike Clinton, Harding was not a sociopath, and he doesn't seem to have been personally guilty of corruption--he just had bad judgment picking people who betrayed his trust. He didn't use the power of the federal government to destroy people who were investigating corruption and wrongdoing.
I'd take LBJ, JFK, Ike, Wilson, Clinton, and Madison down a bit, and put Harding up a little. It may not have been his fault, but Hoover probably did more damage to the country than Nixon. I suppose it depends on whether scandal is worse than being unable to cope.
The Presidents at the bottom are those without any constituency today, though. Except for Harding, they're Whigs or pro-slavery, anti-Black Democrats from the Civil War era, and nobody has any trouble with where they end up. More recent controversial figures -- Hoover, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton -- are saved from the cellar by their supporters. Nobody's going to go out on a limb for Buchanan or Pierce, Tyler or Fillmore.
I'll see your Buchanan and raise you two Clintons...
<<<<
All these years of re-writing history and demonizing Nixon it is remarkable that Nixon still outranks Carter (the greatest ex-President, dontcha know).
>>>>
As a patriot who loved his country, I have no problems with Nixon. He will always be remembered for Watergate which is unfortunate.
But even WITHOUT Watergate, I am not sure if his term was commendable. He was the one who took America out of the Gold Standard eventually resulting in our stagflation. He continued LBJ's great society policies, and he even boasted to everyone saying that "We are All Keynesians Now". The Oil shocks of the 70's started not long after he took office and his pro-price control policies ( albeit not as bad as Carter's ) GUARANTEED the shortages of the late 70's.
I have to say that his economic policies portended Carter's and on this alone ( irrespective of Watergate ) he cannot be given a high rank.
Historians are not any more qualified to judge the present than anyone else. By defifnition they study the past from a detached, removed point of view. To wit, Douglas Brinkley, when asked to comment on corruption in NIO takes it for granted, because he lives ion that mileu. If we get it cleaned up, his observations will seem quaint.
Anyone that thinks FDR should be that high on the list lives in a make-believe world.
FDR, without doubt, is the worst president this nation has ever had. He started us down the road to socialism (maybe even communism) and each any very year we sink deeper into that cesspool.
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.