Rating the Presidents

Townhall ^ | Tuesday, December 5, 2006 | Bruce Bartlett

[Sans-Culotte]

Bartlett's low evaluation of Roosevelt and Wilson are way off the mark. For one thing, Roosevelt's superb performance as Commander-in-Chief during WWII far outweighs any damage done by the New Deal.

Roosevelt's cozying up to Stalin seriously undermines his reputation for fighting WW2, IMO. The war began to save eastern Europe from the yoke of nazism, and ended with eastern Europe under the yoke of communism.

Roosevelt beat Hitler, but lost to Stalin. The real winner of WW2 was Stalin because he defeated both the nazis and his allies. Roosevelt's failure to see Stalin for what he was (and having commie advisors in his administration did not help) reminds me of the whole GWB "religion of peace" debacle.

[TitanicMan2003]

Coolidge had this to say after Hoover was nominated:

"Well, they're going to elect that superman Hoover, and he's going to have some trouble. He's going to have to spend money. But he won't spend enough. Then the Democrats will come in and spend money like water. But they won't know anything about money. Then they will want me to come back and save money for them. But I won't do it."

MGY

[LS]

See "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. He uses Japanese archival material to show that the invasion of JUST the southern island would have been far bloodier than we predicted because they had moved two additional divisions that we didn't know about there. Overall, calculations I've seen were 1 million U.S. dead, minimum, to take Japan. Frank also shows there was NO---zip, zero, nada---consideration whatsoever of surrender by the Japanese prior to Aug. 6.

[LS]

Agree. Also remember that Reagan in this stupid polls was always rated low, but now he is up at the top.

[MadIvan]

Just another example proving that Coolidge was a man of wit and perception.

Regards, Ivan

[presidio9]

In terms of personal character, I would put John Quincy Adams at the top (he suffered from what would be called clinical depression, but always managed to function in spite of it).

In that case, you still have to go with Lincoln, who was bi-polar.

[presidio9]

Hillary would certainly be terrible, but she still couldn't do worse than Jimmy Carter. It is a testament to how effective Reagan really was that the nation managed to recover so quickly from the disaster that was the Carter presidency.

[AdvisorB]

The leftist historians will never recognize the greatness of James Polk, despite the fact that he successfully accomplished everything he set out to achieve. I think there are a number of reasons for this, one being Polk's Whig opponent. The left has a soft spot for Henry Clay, Polk's opponent in the 1844 presidential race. Clay was opposed to Texas annexation (anti-imperialism in the eye's of the left) and opposed any war with Mexico (anti-war). Polk's support for free trade (tariff reduction aka tax cut) was another major irritant for the leftist faithful.

[presidio9]

I believe President Truman thought he would have been impeached had he not dropped the bombs on Japan. But he also thought it was the right thing to do.

The idea that Truman had any alternative to dropping the atomic bombs is a revisionist myth. Casualties were higher in several conventional bombings throughout the war, and one only needs to review the horrific casualties at places like Iwo Jima to realize how catastrophic a full-scale invasion would have been for both sides. Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended up SAVING millions of lives.

[ChurtleDawg]

I might agree on Hiroshima, but I think the Nagasaki bomb was just over kill.

[ChurtleDawg]

He was also unbelievably corrupt and surrounded himself with an incredibly verminous, greedy clique

[the OlLine Rebel]

I agree with many of this person's assessments and theories. The idea that someone should be rated higher because they "did something" is nonsense.

Now, there are cases where the "active" pres should get much credit. No doubt. And probably "inactive" pres who shouldn't get much credit. All depends exactly what happened to them and how they handled it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Noone's character can be rated above Washington. No way.

[FLOutdoorsman]

Clay a leftist? More so a Big Gov't Republican today.

Big proponent against the Turks and wanted the Independence for the Latin American Countries as well.

[KC_Conspirator]

Here is the bottom line to historians and journalists ranking presidents. If you have an (R) next to your name you were an awful president, if you have a (D) next to your name, you were a great president. Its all liberal bias and faux academics.

[Names Ash Housewares]

The most horrible things were said about President Lincoln in his time.

Bush did what had to be done, what others had not the nerve to do. He understands the great threat of islamo facisism to the free world. How important it is that we stopped granting them a free pass over and over again.

If people are shocked at the events in Iraq, then they should be shocked at how horrible and determined islamo facists are, not that we must oppose them.

[MadIvan]

I have to double check but I think you're right in saying his clique was corrupt, I'm less sure that he was personally corrupt.

Regards, Ivan

[Paulus Invictus]

The Japanese were ready for the invasion and the result would have been similar or worse than that in Okinawa--a complete fight to the death. Both the military and civilians were being prepared for the final battles and it would have been devastating for all. The bombs were needed and ended the war. That's the only thing Truman did to get my vote. His handling of the Korean war, however, was awful. It was the first of the RAT start-but-never-win wars. Now the MSM and the RATs are determined for us to lose yet another war. It's so depressing.

[MadIvan]

As a historical figure, I despise Henry Clay. He was arrogant, pompous and nearly always wrong.

My father attended a dinner with a distant, present relation of his. Given my interest in American history, he thought it was great to say, "I had dinner with a descendant of Henry Clay".

I replied, "How unfortunate for you."

Regards, Ivan

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Roosevelt's cozying up to Stalin seriously undermines his reputation for fighting WW2..."

Your use of the phrase 'cozying up' is disingenuous. What was Roosevelt's alternative--not allying ourselves with Russia against the Germans? When engaged in an existential struggle, you take what allies you can get, especially when they're engaging a sizable proportion of the German army.

Historians, both pro- and anti-Roosevelt, decry his giveaway performance at Yalta. Eyewitnesses at the Conference attest to Roosevelt's health, which at that time was in rapid--and very evident--decline. The war killed Roosevelt as surely as it killed soldiers and sailors in action. Thus, I think his mistakes dealing with Stalin--particularly at the Yalta Conference--are explained, but not excused.