February 17, 200917 yr William Henry Harrison is 38th... and Pierce, Johnson and Buchanan are all behind him. How's that feel? If you are ranked behind a guy that only served one month before dying, then that pretty much says: "It would have been better if you'd never been President." Ouch. Of course, in all three cases, it's probably true.
February 17, 200917 yr I feel Bush's leadership when dealing with 9/11 was sufficient to garner him a much better ranking than 24th in crisis leadership.But part of his reaction to it — an ill-advised invasion of Iraq — rightfully brings him back down.
February 17, 200917 yr Biggest joke of a ranking is Kennedy. You are correct. He is rated far too high as are FDR, Carter, and Clinton. All these polls are merely opinions of the participants. From the list, it is obvious that this group leans decidedly to the left. Also, it is not credible to rate recent presidents soon after they leave office. History must play out to really know the effects of their presidency. The poll is meaningless other than to generate discussion and to take shots at certain presidents and to rehabilitate others.
February 17, 200917 yr I haven't heard that argument yet? If you don't mind to explain it... I'm up for a history lesson. I'm not that well versed on it, but I know cch5432 has mentioned it on more than one occassion. I'm not really familiar enough with it to give a good explaination. Not putting the details into play we weren't really out of the depression until we began selling war materials to the British and Soviets in WWII and our economy still didn't really kick into high gear until we entered in late '41. More details from our resident economist to come. :thumb: Paging cch... Busy week, but I will get to it later.....
February 17, 200917 yr No one asked me. 36 out of 42 isn't very good. Plus how can someone give a honest view if they don't know all the facts about all these men?
February 17, 200917 yr I disagree about Lincoln being #1. IMO, FDR has to be #1 with what he did to save the economy after the depression plus having to deal with WW2. All the while dealing with Polio. I'd rank George Washington ahead of Lincoln as well for obvious purposes. You can't have FDR the #1 president due to the fact he had numerous affairs. Teddy Roosevelt is #1 because he brought America to become a world power after he and the "rough riders" conquired San Juan Hill to defeat the Spanish and win the Spanish-American war. He is also the main president of the progressive movement, started Boone and Crocket club, and what would bluegrasspreps be without the NCAA, which Teddy created. I'll finish with 1 of his famous quotes "It will take more than a bullet to kill a bull-moose" (Teddy created the bull-moose party..aka. Progressive Party):thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb: :deadhorse:
February 17, 200917 yr I would rate George Washington #1. He had the leadership, political skills, and popularity to get our new country off its knees and on its feet. I always thought Millard Fillmore was in the bottom 5, but he wasn't listed in the article. WW II finally brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR. Also, it's difficult to compare presidents from different eras. The presidents in the horse and buggy days faced very different problems than the ones in later years.
February 17, 200917 yr I don't know if I'd rank W that low, but he's definately towards the bottom half. During the Clinton administration, the economy was flourishing, we were out of debt, at peace with nearly everyone, no wars. How could anyone say he was overrated?
February 17, 200917 yr I disagree about Lincoln being #1. IMO, FDR has to be #1 with what he did to save the economy after the depression plus having to deal with WW2. All the while dealing with Polio. I'd rank George Washington ahead of Lincoln as well for obvious purposes. Cameraman, add me to the list that is not enamored with FDR. His New Deal introduced the concept of heavy federal govt involvement into the lives of Americans and into the affairs of businesses. He also started the Social Security program which I am totally opposed to on general principles (because people are stupid and can't save for their retirement by themselves, we'll force them to do it). He is considered the father of the modern liberal movement in America. When the U.S. Supreme Ct declared several of his ideas unconstitutional, one of his responses was to try and pack the Supreme Ct. with people sympathetic to his views. I am not a fan to put it mildly.
February 17, 200917 yr FDR Overrated Clap-clap-clap clap clap I think while a lot of FDR's methods ended up not working, the leadership qualities and psychological boost he gave America was very impressive. He was what the US needed present time IMO. Jimmy Carter was an awful president as well. One thing I loved about Kennedy was admitting when he made a mistake and doing what he could to correct it. Just some random thoughts.
February 17, 200917 yr You can't have FDR the #1 president due to the fact he had numerous affairs. Teddy Roosevelt is #1 because he brought America to become a world power after he and the "rough riders" conquired San Juan Hill to defeat the Spanish and win the Spanish-American war. He is also the main president of the progressive movement, started Boone and Crocket club, and what would bluegrasspreps be without the NCAA, which Teddy created. I'll finish with 1 of his famous quotes "It will take more than a bullet to kill a bull-moose" (Teddy created the bull-moose party..aka. Progressive Party):thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb: :deadhorse: I too think highly of TR but your rather simplistic view of his role in the Spanish American War is a little too unrealistic. His charge up San Juan Hill was one act in a larger campaign and even still more expansive global war. Dewey at Manilla and the rest of the campaigns were more influential than that one charge in winning that war.
February 17, 200917 yr I haven't heard that argument yet? If you don't mind to explain it... I'm up for a history lesson. His New Deal wasn't such a "good deal" for the US. It probably extended the Great Depression by another 5-8 years. It definitely laid the grounds for "big" government intervention into capitalism. The US had a similar depression in 1920. The president at that time did nothing. The economy fixed itself within a year or two. Everything was good until the "panic" of 1929.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.