Everyone has their views on what makes a good president...what makes a bad president, and what makes a horrible president. So at the risk of being attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, I offer the following "off-the-cuff" observations of the Presidents starting with Richard Nixon (no research went into this, so I reserve the right to flip-flop completely once I think about it more).Nixon: A micromanager, often vindicative and arrogant, but also an expansive thinker. He opened up relations with China and started the EPA, but also, after watching his VP go down in flames, decided to jump into the inferno himself. What on earth was the guy thinking expansively about when he did that?
Ford: He was a nice guy, but we have to admit that he was merely an accidental placeholder. Kind of the last man standing after the embarrassment of Agnew, then Nixon's downfalls.
Carter: An idealist and humanitarian with broad ideas and future thinking, but probably ahead of his time and not much of a manager of the governing process. He partially got elected because he wasn't Nixon or Ford. OPEC's shenanigans and the Iran hostage crisis completely killed any chances he had at having a good presidency, though I'm not sure he would have lasted more than the one term in any case. He has had both the most respected and the most reviled post-presidency of any recent president.
Reagan: An actor and strong of will, just when we needed someone to act like they were strong of will. I give him more credit than some regarding the fall of the USSR, but less than many (the USSR collapsed more under its own weight than anything we might have done...but Reagan clearly did his part to sneer at them as they teetered over the precipice). Other than that he was a one or two trick pony that stuck to those "ideals" and nothing else really mattered. While endeared by most, he did leave us with record debt and increased the size of government more than anyone (until Bush II on both counts).
Bush I: Again a likeable guy, especially after he was gone, but he was a VP who only got to be president because people couldn't vote for Reagan again (and because Dukakis didn't look good in a tank). He did good with pushing Saddam out of Kuwait, but like his son took his eye off the economy. His post-presidency has been as "the elder statesman."
Clinton: A smart man and expansive thinker, but with an obvious predilection that kept him from reaching his potential. He also took his first election as way too much of a mandate and pushed way too far way too fast on way too ideological issues. Which resulted directly in his last 6 years working with a Republican Congress. Despite their incessant attacks on his personal character (resulting in $45 million being spent to prove the guy lied about getting a bj in the oval office), the split power-sharing actually resulted in decent governing, in part because Clinton was man enough to suck it up and be pragmatic. The impeachment was more a reflection on the Republicans in the House than it was on Clinton, which is why his approval rating remained high despite his "indiscretions." It helped that he presided over the largest economic growth in decades and a budget surplus or two.
Bush II: Perhaps with time we won't still think of W as the worst president ever. But frankly, it's going to take a while. At the very least it won't happen until we recover the surplus he turned into debt, finish two wars he started, recapture our international respect and leadership role, and dig ourselves out of the economic canyon he left us. As I said, it will take time. Ironically, his legacy will depend on how well Obama does.
Obama: Who knows. The man thinks, but he started with the massive legacy of Bush II. He could be as good as some think, or as bad as others hope. We'll have a better idea in the run up to the 2010 mid-term elections, but realistically this hole is going to take longer than that to fill in. His chances in 2012 will depend less on us being "fixed" as it will on whether people like the direction he is taking us. Without a doubt it looks like it will be a different direction than we had been going before his eleciton. The big question is, will we like it? The answer - it's the economy, stupid. If the economy looks good, he will look good.
So, agree...disagree...ignore. Thoughts?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 225
Please that went way over the line.
When Bush stepped in office it busted. Bush knew his re-election was at stake so instead of giving the economy the tough love it needed he worked with Alan Greenspan to go on the biggest spending spree ever with huge deficit spending and tax cuts, buying him 4 or 5 years of phony prosperity, enough to get him re-elected.
Now Obama comes in and faces a similar situation as Bush. And guess what? He's doing the same thing, only this time all the numbers are bigger.
Obama's appears ready to more than max out our deficit spending ability, and substantially weaken the dollar, all to keep us in an economic bubble. I will readily label him worst president ever, with Bush coming in right behind.
sure - it would come back - but a complete collapse would be brutal and nasty in the meantime.
Peter, the booms are the problems; the bust is the cure. You have to let the markets correct themselves, and that can be painful for awhile, but it is less painful than letting it all build up as we have done.
For instance, the bailouts should never have happened, bankrupt companies must be allowed to fail. Capitalism and free markets would have knocked out a good number of corporate crooks, but no, the government and it's bought and paid for politicians wouldn't let that happen. Now we get to complain as the top executives enjoy big bonuses and salaries. They would have lost their jobs if we had not meddled with the markets.
The debt will be the number one concern soon enough once foreign nations stop lending us money. That's going to come sooner than we'd like to think.
Regan is the only truly bad President, if only because he orchestrated the purging of moderate Republicans. The partisan divide is his legacy, and his shame.
I'm not sure I agree that the dot.com bubble was from a loose monetary policy, since it really had nothing to do with financial institutions (well, except for the investment bankers). Most of the dot.com was on us, as we all invested in companies that had nothing more than an idea backing them up. For every Google there were a thousand others with no business plan and no idea how to run a business. But we invested in them anyway. Kind of dumb. And clearly there were surpluses.
I also think you've completely missed the a key even affecting Bush II and the economy. In the first 8 months he mostly was focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy in a classic Reagan "trickle down" theory, but 9/11 pretty much changed the game. Rather than adapt, Bush II tried to play both ends against the middle (class).
I think all agree that Obama artificially propped up the economy. Especially since everyone called on him to do it and he said he was doing it. It's called the Stimulus. The idea was to keep the economy afloat rather than let it sink into a depression...long enough to allow people to learn how to swim. Arguably it is working, and those who point to the terrible unemployment numbers seem to forget that 1) employment always lags in a recovery, and 2) the loss of jobs was horrific before he took office and has moderated ever since that time. It's like complaining that there is still a trickle of bleeding even though the patient had been spurting like an open spigot before. [And before anyone gets all up in arms, I do know (from personal experience) that everyone without a job isn't about to start singing any praises while they are still unemployed. Which is why everyone is still working very hard to fix the problem, not just slow the flow.)
Is there such a thing ???
The wild west was wise ???
And stop trucking gasoline around and see how long things last.
You're right. The .com bubble was not caused by the loose monetary policy alone; but it did create a good environment for it to happen in.
If capitalism will always survive, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth because Obama supports the (Socialist) status quo? And I'd like to see capitalism survive without our socialist postal service, utilities, etc.
Other than that, free enterprise is a great thing.
Wall Street hopes that Congress won't stumble on to a dictionary, anytime soon.
I find your disregard for the rule of law rather disheartening. Here is what Abraham Lincoln thought:
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. (January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address)
and
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap -- let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; -- let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. (also from the Lyceum Address)
and
Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief -- resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. (July 1, 1850 Notes for a Law Lecture)
I'm afraid the first Republican president would find your attitude rather illogical.
If Tia Rosita were forced to comply with all of the stupid and inapplicable laws, I couldn't get any real tamales, anywhere.
And who gets to decide if the laws are "stupid and inapplicable?" You? Tia? The person breaking the law? Seems rather illogical as well.
We have laws for a reason.
"The only way to be unpatriotic is to be a scofflaw" Tim Nelson.
I saw some episodes of "Dexter", it kind of creeps me out.
I'm the one who waits for the light to change before crossing, even when there is no one in sight in any direction.
Pretty sure that oranges, and garments are not illegal to buy, but if they were...
Peter Joseph Swanson Oct 20, 2009, 2:56pm EDT
Funny, the right is accusing Obama of being that while he scrambles to save capitalism. ha ha
Obama saving capitalism? That is one of the funniest and dumbest things I've read in a very long time.
It's called Capitalism, otherwise known as Markets, and it all hinges on Credit and Banks.
Get real.
If you say so.
And, how many of you have ever smoked an illegal weed??
Nope
Or had a beer while under age or pushed the speed limit by 15 MPH.
Nope on the beer; nudged the speed limit and paid for it in accordance with the law.
or fudged (mebbe pushed the edge of the envelope a touch) on your federal or state taxes??
Nope.
Double parked or, heaven forbid, parked in a handicapped spot??
Nope, and nope.
Who didn't cheer for Thelma and Louise???
Do you mean when one protected the other from being raped? Actually, that was within the limits of the law. (Still, nope on the cheering) The other stuff, nope.
or Dexter???
What's a Dexter?
Seems you know a lot of people who regularly dismiss the rule of law. I don't.
Nope
They were picked by illegals.
So you have checked the legality of every person in the United States who has picked oranges and determined that every single one of them is an illegal alien? And yet you didn't report them to authorities?
Wear Garments???
Sewn in illegal sweat shops in East LA.
Again, you've checked every garment anyone ever wore and they all come from the illegal sweat shops in East LA? Even the ones that say they were sewn in Malaysia, China, Vietnam, Suriname, and Bulgaria? And again, didn't report these illegal activities?
Are we a bit prone to hyperbole and overgeneralization?
I'm beginning to think you made Tia Rosita up just to push your point, which seems to be that the rule of law is for sops and you think people should just violate any law they don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure they are too, Tim. Even the ones that are imported.
Alan Greenspan took 50 years to admit that markets are no self-correcting.
I hope Congress doesn't take 50 years to regulate them.
It is their job, after all.
He actually had some common sense back in the 1960's.
No kidding? You mean you just made her up and lied about all the information just to press your preferred viewpoint that it is okay to break the law?
There is a whole world of people out here that do what they have to to survive.
Like break laws?
They don't live in the ivory tower that you seem to.
You think I live in an ivory tower because I don't go around breaking any law designed to protect the rights of all Americans, just because I feel like it?
I find that actual facts and figures sometimes mask the real truth.
So you think actual facts get in the way of your preferred message?
Did I say I agreed with the decision?
Besides, he really isn't changing much from what has been going on. Not to mention that it only applies to those who are acting in compliance with State Law (which is still legally valid until overturned). Here is one take on it, though again I'm not claiming to agree with it, either legally or morally.
Yesterday’s Obama administration guidelines don’t legalize marijuana, said Attorney General Eric Holder in a statement.
“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws,†he said. “But we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.â€
The Justice Department will continue to focus resources on “serious drug traffickers, while taking into account state and local laws,†Holder said.
So are you going for Jim Carrey or Frank Gorshin? Or do you prefer the comic book version?
I've never advocated eutopian theories, nor have ridden high horses or lived in ivory towers. You, on the other hand, are advocating breaking of laws on the basis of simple expediency while spinning a yarn based mostly on ideological misinterpretation and/or misrpresentation.
I prefer working toward real solutions for real people based on real facts.
This string was so long that I had to look pretty far back to see what this was in reference to (poor Matthew, who probably gets an email notice every time someone comments).
That said, based on what I've seen, "self-centered" does seem to be a better descriptor.
LOL, I do get an email for every response
Self-centered, R.F.?
That's ok with me if you think personal freedom and liberty is self-centered. There's nothing wrong with them.
Markets are self correcting but don't ever let them correct.
Letting Wall Street size bankrupt business go out of business is a correction. Bailing them out is not.
Very true.
Very true.
Actually, it's only true if you think one or two dimensionally. Thinking multidimensionally one would easily see that it not only is it emotionally possible to be otherwise, but that most of humanity would fall into some middle ground between thesw two largely artificial extremes.
In other words, most people are real, not caricatures.
Actually, most animals are instinctual. Needless to say, most humans have a higher order of cognition than most animals, so the generalized comparison isn't very useful. Whereas one might not expect a earthworm to think multidimensionally (or even "think" at all), there is no excuse for humans not to think multidimensionally. We have that capacity even though it appears many choose not to employ it.
I never said people don't (or shouldn't) look out for themselves first, but again we've run into a two-dimensional thinking problem here. Looking out for yourself is not inconsistent with looking out for humanity. In fact, the long-term survival of each of us now requires sustainable interactions with others, from your neighbors up through the international community.
If you eat the fish flopped up on the shore without learning how to fish, you don't last long.
The tragedy of the commons (a la Garrett Hardin) is why we have government regulation and laws. Not sand at all. Sound management.
George W. Bush will be viewed as LBJ. I think LBJ will be a near-great president and W. will be an above-average president.
It don't trickle down - so he was dreadful.
(And we will pay for his huge war mistakes in the world for decades)
It's all about population, demographics, etc.
Of course, my benchmark is the Civil War.
Carter wanted to decrease the size of government and was bewildered when it mushroomed all around him and he found himself unable to control itl
How often have I heard that "Readanomics didn't work"? What Reagan proposed was that by reducing taxes, federal revenues would increase. He was right and they did. So why the deficit? An under-equipped and demoralized military. It was the military spending which broke the bank. Historians and many of us will disagree as to whether and to what extent the military spending was required.
Clinton was (is) smart, sneaky, hypocritical, polls-based and insincere. However he did pursue a moderate agenda which is so foreign to American politics today. If there are moderates out there, we're awfully quiet!
Obama: "He could be as good as some think, or as bad as others hope." I don't think that's quite fair, although I've expressed that before. Just because some people disagree with some of his policies and directions doesn't necessarily mean that they hope he fails. I for one don't support his agenda 100% but he's our President and I don't relish the thought of him going down in flames. I suspect that some realities will soak in and edge him toward a more moderate position on some issues.
There. I did as you asked.
I think there is a question usually overlooked in discussions of military spending. And that is the question of waste. We spend tons of money (translation: Billions of dollars) on weapons that are of questionable value even in cases where the Pentagon says they don't want or need them. Why? Because Congressmen want to keep the funding going back to their home districts. We also lose billions of dollars in fraud, which has been documented time and time again in the same defense contractors that we then turn around and give even more government contracts to, complete with new sets of overexpenditures and fraud opportunities. We send billions more overseas to places like Iraq where it promptly disappears into some black hole (commonly known as the pockets of dictators and defense contractors alike).
In short, the defense budget, if properly managed and held accountable, could probably be half of what it is and still get the same actual defense value out of it.
Given that the defense budget is a huge proporation of our annual budget, doesn't it make sense for someone to start managing it for value instead of as a way to get contractors rich and Congressmen reelected?
Hmm...Nixon was right of center for his time. JFK was a centrist. Ford was a bit right of center. Reagan was waay right of center. Carter was slightly to the left of center. Bush I was right of center. Clinton was a centrist; he would have been indistinguishable from most Republicans in 1960. Bush II was way right of center. Obama is conservative on foreign policy and a bit left of center on social issues.
The high polish could have been for maximum corrosion resistance, but maybe not. :) I worked as a heat treater for 15 years and dealt with government and military specifications a lot. Some of them are very reasonable even when they're costly. A lot of the high cost of military procurement is QA related. Parts have to be traceable to every step in the manufacturing process. Inspection has to be much more rigorous. OTOH, a lot of contractors have done quite well by overcharging the government.
Nixon went to China, with the same lack of enthusiasm from both parties.
Obama has all the potential in the world to do something similar.
The other Presidents took the old gamesmanship tact. Be in favor of more than you can get, and settle for what you actually can get. But don't upset the political party what brung ya.
The other Presidents took the old gamesmanship tact. Be in favor of more than you can get, and settle for what you actually can get. But don't upset the political party what brung ya.
I agree that Obama is trying to govern even if he has to drag both parties kicking and screaming behind him.
But I think it would be a mistake to suggest that he isn't adept at politics. The reality is that you can't get everything you want because there is a little thing called Congress. And Congress needs to get reelected. And if all the Democrats lose the next election than Obama will get nothing. Part of the president's job is to make things happen, and sometimes that means a choice between getting part way there versus no where.
I see Obama in the mold of Abraham Lincoln. People underestimated his political guile as well.
As long as the jokes are honest jokes.
Gee, this is one post which is difficult to squeeze a word in.
Whoever is in power is silly.
There's a lot of wisdom in taking that view, at least in a democracy.
I don't think the most recent Bush was the worst president ever. In the 20th century alone we also had Harding and Coolidge.
Nippy - I think the criteria that makes Bush II the worst is this: Harding and Coolidge's faults were sins of omission, while Bush was a actively bad president.
David K.
Wonderful and sober analysis, calmed and tranquil.
I like that you don't use partisanship.
I think that Mr Obama is extremely intelligent and gifted, but he can not go straight ahead against the Super Hawks and Super Jingos in War Matters.
It is very easy to start wars, but it is very difficult to end them. Obama would be an easy target of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc .... if he says "Let's bring the troops now".
A Great Historian said five years ago : the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most important Historical Events of our time. .... Anything else is unimportant for Future History.
So, sports, celebrities, insults on Radio, TV, or congress, all things are unimportant compared to the "Arrow of History" pointed by the resolution of the Wars.
Prophesizing.com
Vicente Duque
I would agree with that...mostly. And as I say in the article, the irony is that what Obama does in both wars will help determine how Bush is viewed by history.
But I think there is one more thing that is important for history. Bush was just not liked by most of the world. And it wasn't his ideology because there are plenty of others with similar ideologies. It was his attitude. His self-avowed "with us or against us" (translation: do it my way or you're mud) philosophy really irked most of the rest of the world. They turn to the US for leadership, but they are all sovereign nations themselves so certainly are not going to give up what is in their best interests just to appease the US because we say it is in our best interest. Leadership means finding a path forward keeping in mind the interests of others as well as your own. It means partnering with others, not necessarily equally, but equitably.
How that plays out in history is yet to be seen.
Predicting the Fate of Nations in 1986 : "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", by Paul Kennedy
People are talking here about Military Expenditures of Bush and Obama :
From Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers
Some excerpts :
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy, first published in 1987, explores the politics and economics of the Great Powers from 1500 to 1980 and the reason for their decline. It then continues by forecasting the positions of China, Japan, the European Economic Community (EEC), the Soviet Union and the United States through the end of the 20th century.
....................
He compares the Great Powers at the close of the 20th century and predicts the decline of the Soviet Union (the book was originally published on the cusp of the Soviet collapse, the suddenness of which Kennedy did not predict), the rise of China and Japan, the struggles and potential for the EEC, and the relative decline of the United States. He highlights the precedence of the "four modernizations" in Deng Xiaoping's plans for China—agriculture, industry, science and military—deemphasizing military while the United States and the Soviet Union are emphasizing it. He predicts that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, will be the single most important reason for decline of any Great Power.
Prophesizing.com
Vicente Duque
On a partisan note, I see Obama as having to struggle mightily to change economic mess into economic flat line. The fact that we all are used to thinking of boom times as normal concerns me. It's a disjunct between expectation and likely reality.
At least the recent crop of Presidents has not contained a Harding. Bush II was not good, but maybe he will top that.
Which they won't.
97% part of the 1950's.
He was found INNOCENT of all charges from when he was governor of Mass.
I think that Nixon would be upset as to how far to the right the GOP has drifted.
Also for clarity, while VP he was being investigated for a variety of things, and was formally charged with "having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000, while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President of the United States." He "was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President." Also, ten years after his resignation, "he paid the state of Maryland nearly $270,000 as a result of a civil suit that stemmed from the bribery allegations." [All info in quotes from Wikipedia]
So Agnew was NOT found innocent at all. In fact, it's likely he was guilty of far more than on what he was formally charged.
He did resign to fight the allegations.
I do NOT trust wikpededia because, in the past, users have changed the info.
As far as the $270,000 payment, I have no knowledge of.
And, yes, he was a racist a hole.
It's worth reminding people, however, that Bush 43 was so busy "clearing brush" during his month-long vacation that he couldn't be bothered with hard evidence that our country was about to be attacked. Just ask yourself: if you were president then, would you have done the same thing? Really?
Just ask yourself: if you were president then, would you have done the same thing? Really?
Don't know. But even if I did something different, would it have been enough to stop it?
For actual facts related to FDA's action regarding raw oysters, see the following EPA backgrounder. Note that the action would still allow collection and sale of oysters but require post-harvest processing (i.e., cooking) to kill the Vibrio vulnificus bacteria that kills about 15 people per year from eating raw oysters. Costs are predicted to be low, no significant impacts are expected on most local fisheries (most certainly the action would not "cripple the fishing and tourist industry in every maritime state," which is meaningless hyperbole devoid of factual support), and FDA would provide technical assistance.
Not quite so disastrous when you look at actual facts, eh.
Also, I can't quite agree about Reagan being strong of will. I just think he had a strong set of hands pulling the strings. To be strong of will seems to me to require some awareness, and I never saw evidence that Reagan the President was aware of anything except how to look good and sound good (earlier on, he knew how to inform on his friends during McCarthyism, but that may have just been to open up some acting opportunities).
As for Nixon, he was a potentially good president locked in the mind of an arrogant man. It's really rather a shame what he allowed himself to become. Though he did make some amends after he returned to private life.
Certainly more than an accidental placeholder.
By the way, well written post. I like thoughtful opinions without name-calling. A nice change of pace, to be sure!