A Brief History of the Presidency

[Kenn Smith]

I read the rehtorical excess of the right and left - "Brack Obama is the
worst president in US history", "No, George Bush was the worst
president in US History". Nonsense, all. That's looking at history
through the wrong end of a telescope.

Historians evaluate presidential administrations through the lens of
history, not today's headlines. They haven't even begun to evaluate
President Obama's administration because he's still in office. They
have just gingerly begun to approach that of President Bush.

But for those of you who want to look for the worst consider this list:

Millard Fillmore
John Tyler
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Richard Nixon
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Zachary Taylor
James Buchanan

The brief historical evaluations I have read of President Bush have him
floating somewhere around 12th - 14th worst president. That doesn't
sound too good on the surface but it does put him in the top 1/3 of all
presidents :-)

I just happen to be an American history buff of sorts (was certified to
teach it at the secondary level), am especially interested in the
policies and long term results of various administrations (the evil we
do long outlives us), and you can define the "evil" as you see fit.

BTW. for anyone interested in the history of the American revolution i'm
currently reading the best history of it I've ever read. It's title is
"Liberty" by Thomas Flemming. It has interesting details on the
machinations in George III's court which finally lead to the breakaway.
It also has georgeous printings of paintins and sketches which portray
the events of the era.

[Dene]

Nixon surprises me. He accomplished some things during his tenure,
which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide. If corruption is
the criteria, then Nixon belongs there. If ineffectiveness what's
measured, Carter should replace him.

-Greg.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:

>Nixon surprises me. He accomplished some things during his tenure,
>which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide. If corruption is
>the criteria, then Nixon belongs there. If ineffectiveness what's
>measured, Carter should replace him.
>
>-Greg.

If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of that
list.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:46:59 -0500, grizzl...@webtv.net (Kenn
Smith) wrote:

>But for those of you who want to look for the worst consider this list:
>
>Millard Fillmore
>John Tyler
>Andrew Johnson
>Ulysses S. Grant
>Richard Nixon
>Warren Harding
>Calvin Coolidge
>Zachary Taylor
>James Buchanan

Quite a few people have Woodrow Wilson at the top here.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Kenn Smith]

I wasn't clear with that listing. They were in no particular order,
just a random listing of the names which most frequently occur on the
bottom 1/3 lists. Historians are like economists - give one subject to
three of them and they can argue it for hours :-)

[John B.]

What's the source of this list?

[BAR]

In article <5rl2p7p0mcmc2l1v9...@4ax.com>, Horvath1758
@net.net says...

There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince Foster
and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.

[Ken Pitts]

On Apr 20, 3:49 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <5rl2p7p0mcmc2l1v9orv38n1i9as65t...@4ax.com>, Horvath1758
> @net.net says...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote

> > this crap:
>
> > >Nixon surprises me.  He accomplished some things during his tenure,
> > >which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide.  If corruption is
> > >the criteria, then Nixon belongs there.  If ineffectiveness what's
> > >measured, Carter should replace him.
>
> > >-Greg.
>
> > If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of that
> > list.
>
> There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince Foster
> and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.

Ron Brown also.

Ken

[Kenn Smith]

In answer to your source question, notice that I used the plural lists.
There might be a dozen or more of them compiled by different historians
with different values/perspectives/agendas. Some are extracted from
scholarly papers, some aren't.

Google Best and Worst US Presidents and you will have a lot of lists to
compare.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:49:58 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>>
>> If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of that
>> list.
>
>There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince Foster
>and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.

Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Jim Macdougall, and Kathleen Willey's
husband. All died under mysterious circumstances.

[BAR]

In article <1454ab1d-e1ff-4525-bb9b-7279678b0006
@h9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, kenpi...@gmail.com says...

I had almost forgotten about the mountain jumping out in front of that
plane.

[John B.]

On Apr 20, 4:49 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <5rl2p7p0mcmc2l1v9orv38n1i9as65t...@4ax.com>, Horvath1758
> @net.net says...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote

> > this crap:
>
> > >Nixon surprises me.  He accomplished some things during his tenure,
> > >which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide.  If corruption is
> > >the criteria, then Nixon belongs there.  If ineffectiveness what's
> > >measured, Carter should replace him.
>
> > >-Greg.
>
> > If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of that
> > list.
>
> There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince Foster
> and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.

Only for deranged conspiracy theorists like you.

[Kenn Smith]

Well, I'll have to admit that BAR and Ken did a nice job of highjacking
a thread. The intent was to focus on the totallity of administrations,
not on individual incidents.

Adinistration corruption is generally just one cosnsideration for
historians evaluating admnistrations and even its weight shifts
depending on the administration being evaluated. The Grant
administration, for example, was one of the most corrupt in US history.
That, combined wirh the fact his administration left no lasting legacy
for the US, puts him in the bottom third. OTOH, Lyndon Johnson had a
corrupt administration but left the legacy, if nothig else, of the Civil
Rights Act. He's usually ranked somewhere in the middle of the pack.

[BAR]

In article <bd7e67a9-96a1-41ed-b643-
a1a9d7...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...

There are too many questions still unanswered about Foster's death.

[BAR]

In article <18650-4F9...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>,
grizzl...@webtv.net says...

>
> Well, I'll have to admit that BAR and Ken did a nice job of highjacking
> a thread. The intent was to focus on the totallity of administrations,
> not on individual incidents.

We went off on a tangent. If the rest of you chose to follow then come
along, however, if you want to continue the thread without us please do
so.

> Adinistration corruption is generally just one cosnsideration for
> historians evaluating admnistrations and even its weight shifts
> depending on the administration being evaluated. The Grant
> administration, for example, was one of the most corrupt in US history.
> That, combined wirh the fact his administration left no lasting legacy
> for the US, puts him in the bottom third. OTOH, Lyndon Johnson had a
> corrupt administration but left the legacy, if nothig else, of the Civil
> Rights Act. He's usually ranked somewhere in the middle of the pack.

The problem with LBJ's legacy is that it doesn't rightly attribute its
successes to the support from Republicans in Congress.

LBJ's lasting effect was getting us full-scale into the Vietnam war and
destroying the nuclear family with the Great Society.

[kenpitts]

Hey Kenn. Weather is beautiful (except for a few tornadoes now and
then). Are you ever up Fort Worth way?

I can't believe Carter is not on this list if Nixon is. Nixon only
belongs because of his devious nature and corruption.

Ken

[Carbon]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:48:04 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <bd7e67a9-96a1-41ed-b643-
> a1a9d7...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>> On Apr 20, 4:49 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5rl2p7p0mcmc2l1v9orv38n1i9as65t...@4ax.com>, Horvath1758
>>> @net.net says...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gdst...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote this crap:
>>>>
>>>>> Nixon surprises me.  He accomplished some things during his
>>>>> tenure, which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide.  If
>>>>> corruption is the criteria, then Nixon belongs there.  If
>>>>> ineffectiveness what's measured, Carter should replace him.
>>>>

>>>> If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of
>>>> that list.
>>>
>>> There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince
>>> Foster and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.
>>
>> Only for deranged conspiracy theorists like you.
>
> There are too many questions still unanswered about Foster's death.

Loons don't count.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:52:35 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>LBJ's lasting effect was getting us full-scale into the Vietnam war and
>destroying the nuclear family with the Great Society.

Without LBJ's Great Society, how would the nuclear family be
different?

[kenpitts]

Fathers would not leave the home so readily. They did it to receive
that green check each month when the eagle flew. I have seen couples
behave that way first hand for myself when I was younger.

Ken

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:48:04 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this

crap:

>> > > >Nixon surprises me.  He accomplished some things during his tenure,
>> > > >which caused him to get re-elected in a landslide.  If corruption is
>> > > >the criteria, then Nixon belongs there.  If ineffectiveness what's
>> > > >measured, Carter should replace him.
>> >
>> > > >-Greg.
>> >
>> > > If corruption is the criteria then Clinton belongs on the top of that
>> > > list.
>> >
>> > There are still too many questions left unanswered about Vince Foster
>> > and his visit to Ft. Marcy park.
>>
>> Only for deranged conspiracy theorists like you.
>
>There are too many questions still unanswered about Foster's death.

Like how was the suicide gun found two weeks after his death? Why was
his printed suicide note not signed?

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:55:57 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 10:24 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:52:35 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> >LBJ's lasting effect was getting us full-scale into the Vietnam war and
>> >destroying the nuclear family with the Great Society.
>>
>> Without LBJ's Great Society, how would the nuclear family be
>> different?

>Fathers would not leave the home so readily. They did it to receive
>that green check each month when the eagle flew. I have seen couples
>behave that way first hand for myself when I was younger.
>
>Ken

Ahh, then it isn't my nuclear family you are talking about. Maybe
some have said that's why they left. I bet they were lying - at
least to themselves. There always have been people who have
abandoned their families.

It's easier to track them down nowadays than it used to be.

[kenpitts]

On Apr 22, 12:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:55:57 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts
>

No, I am talking about fathers who don't live at home so that the
mother can continue to have babies and get ever larger AFDC checks.
They are still somewhat involved but live elsewhere (parents,
friends). I knew people who were brazen enough to say that they were
doing that. Needless to say I was not impressed.

Ken

[Kenn Smith]

Hi, Ken, beautiful down here today also, mid 80's at 1:00 PM. Ii may
have a municipal government conference in the DFW area later this year.
If so I'll let you know and show up clubs in hand.

[kenpitts]

Roger that. I need 24 hrs notice.

Ken

[Kenn Smith]

Ken, you'll have at least two weeks notice.
I'll look at the conference schedule and decide which morning or
afternoon I can miss without missing anything important.

In all my working years of attending probably hundreds of conferences I
can only think of a couple which were so intense that one couldn't take
a half a day away without missing anything or being missed.

[kenpitts]

OK

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

As with Truman, when historians evaluate the challenges he faced and the political situation at the time, they give credibility to those who basically sacrificed their popularity for the good of their country. Bush will be up there with Truman--who left office with popularity in the low 30s, but is now recognized as one of our best.

Larry

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:20:53 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:

>As with Truman, when historians evaluate the challenges he faced and the political situation at the time, they give credibility to those who basically sacrificed their
>popularity for the good of their country. Bush will be up there with Truman--who left office with popularity in the low 30s, but is now recognized as one of our best.

Funny how hard the Republicans have been distancing themselves from
being associated with GWB in any way.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:27:56 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:

>Funny how hard the Republicans have been distancing themselves from
>being associated with GWB in any way.

Name one.

[BAR]

In article <pub9p79dduf6c8ah4...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:20:53 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
> <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
> >As with Truman, when historians evaluate the challenges he faced and the political situation at the time, they give credibility to those who basically sacrificed their
> >popularity for the good of their country. Bush will be up there with Truman--who left office with popularity in the low 30s, but is now recognized as one of our best.
>
>
> Funny how hard the Republicans have been distancing themselves from
> being associated with GWB in any way.

How many campaign events did Al Gore invite Bill Clinton to attend?

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:37:44 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>> >As with Truman, when historians evaluate the challenges he faced and the political situation at the time, they give credibility to those who basically sacrificed their
>> >popularity for the good of their country. Bush will be up there with Truman--who left office with popularity in the low 30s, but is now recognized as one of our best.
>>
>>
>> Funny how hard the Republicans have been distancing themselves from
>> being associated with GWB in any way.
>
>How many campaign events did Al Gore invite Bill Clinton to attend?

Just because this happens with Democrats doesn't change what I said.

[Howard Brazee]

An interesting one is GWB himself, who thinks the Republicans would do
better if they didn't call them "the Bush tax cuts".

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:51:00 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>Just because this happens with Democrats doesn't change what I said.

Speaking of which, it's funny to see the Democrats are now the ones
objecting to judicial activism. It's not the concept that a party
objects to - unless the court rules the other party's way.

What goes around, comes around.

[kenpitts]

The Dems are the ones that installed activist judges from stem to
stern. Hard to see how the SCOTUS could ever be considered activist.

Ken

[BAR]

In article <0mnbp7d9k7satunkj...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:51:00 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just because this happens with Democrats doesn't change what I said.
>
>
> Speaking of which, it's funny to see the Democrats are now the ones
> objecting to judicial activism. It's not the concept that a party
> objects to - unless the court rules the other party's way.
>
> What goes around, comes around.

Judicial activism is a call to arms and has no real meaning anymore.

[John B.]

On Apr 24, 7:50 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <0mnbp7d9k7satunkjbl69p78d0bf6lu...@4ax.com>,

Judicial activism is any ruling that someone disagrees with.

[MNMikeW]

Pretty much.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:50:16 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>> Speaking of which, it's funny to see the Democrats are now the ones
>> objecting to judicial activism. It's not the concept that a party
>> objects to - unless the court rules the other party's way.
>>
>> What goes around, comes around.
>
>
>Judicial activism is a call to arms and has no real meaning anymore.

Ahh, you must be on the side that likes the current rulings.