Happy Presidents Day; Rate the Prez

[KukriKhan]

Happy day off with pay to all my fellow Yank public service employees.:balloon2:

Let's give our current President his 6th-year report card, comparing him to his 42 predessessors, "A" being top-notch, "C" being average, "F" being failure.

The poll is anonymous.

Here are the previous guys, to refresh your memory:

1 George Washington (1789-97)

2 John Adams, 1797-1801 (Federalist)

3 Thomas Jefferson, 1801-9 (Democratic-Republican)

4 James Madison, 1809-17 (Democratic-Republican)

5 James Monroe, 1817-25 (Democratic-Republican)

6 John Quincy Adams, 1825-29 (Democratic-Republican)

7 Andrew Jackson, 1829-37 (Democrat)

8 Martin Van Buren, 1837-41 (Democrat)

9 William Henry Harrison, 1841 (Whig)

10 John Tyler, 1841-45 (Whig)

11 James Knox Polk, 1845-49 (Democrat)

12 Zachary Taylor, 1849-50 (Whig)

13 Millard Fillmore, 1850-53 (Whig)

14 Franklin Pierce, 1853-57 (Democrat)

15 James Buchanan, 1857-61 (Democrat)

16 Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65 (Republican)

17 Andrew Johnson, 1865-69 (Democrat/National Union)

18 Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-77 (Republican)

19 Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-81 (Republican)

20 James Abram Garfield, 1881 (Republican)

21 Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-85 (Republican)

22 Grover Cleveland, 1885-89 (Democrat)

23 Benjamin Harrison, 1889-93 (Republican)

24 Grover Cleveland, 1893-97 (Democrat)

25 William McKinley, 1897-1901 (Republican)

26 Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-9 (Republican)

27 William Howard Taft, 1909-13 (Republican)

28 Woodrow Wilson, 1913-21 (Democrat)

29 Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-23 (Republican)

30 Calvin Coolidge, 1923-29 (Republican)

31 Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-33 (Republican)

32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-45 (Democrat)

33 Harry S Truman, 1945-53 (Democrat)

34 Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican)

35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat)

36 Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat)

37 Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican)

38 Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr , 1974-77 (Republican)

39 James Earl Carter, 1977-81 (Democrat)

40 Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican)

41 George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican)

42 William Jefferson Clinton, 1993- 2001(Democrat)

43 George W. Bush, 2001- (Republican)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

C. He's better than a few, worse than a few, same as like one.
Better than: Clinton, Kennedy, Carter
Worse than: Reagan, Bush 1, Nixon
Same as: Cant think of one.

[Ianofsmeg16]

I agree with Kaiser, C prez, Clinton was better i thought, but I'm british, what do i know?

[Sjakihata]

Gah! gets my vote, Bush hasnt even earned a grade

[Louis VI the Fat]

On a scale from 'A' to 'F', he get's a 'Gah'. :balloon2:

[Tachikaze]

I considered giving him a D in light of low-bar-setting Nixon, Grant, and Harding. But I can't. Nixon did some good stuff, but over-balanced it with the awful. He was a sick, paranoid man. Grant was simply a poor president, and Harding was a model of high-level corruption. They all rate an F.

Coolidge, Reagan, Buchanan, among others, get a D.

If any presidents were to get an A, John Quincy Adams, FDR, and Lincoln would have the best chance. Truman and Carter had some A-class moments, but had grade-sinking problems as well. I don't know everything about him, but J.Q. Adams might be my favorite of all time.

Clinton and Truman get Bs.

I can't think of anything Bush has done right, and the Iraq invasion was absolutely unforgivable crime. He has no regard for the Bill of Rights if they impede his religious and military agenda.

He is no better than the first three I mentioned, so he gets an F.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm being kind: he gets a B, albeit a low B.

He's done good for the economy with the tax cuts, but continues increasing spending. Has done good with the war on terror, and this is where he gets most of his good score, in comparison with the criminal negligence of Clinton, though Iraq was not handled as well as it could have, but has ignored the dangerous porous southern border. He's also done some stupid things, like signing McCain-Feingold on the belief the SCOTUS would overturn it (they didn't).

That is only temporary. His real grade will be after his presidency, and how history turns out.

Crazed Rabbit

[AntiochusIII]

Sadly I see the pattern of partisan voting, as usual.

But I guess that is unavoidable.

Therefore, I've decided to give out no grade.

[Byzantine Prince]

Numero A, of course. He is the greatest president ever!

[Xiahou]

I'm being kind: he gets a B, albeit a low B.

He's done good for the economy with the tax cuts, but continues increasing spending. Has done good with the war on terror, and this is where he gets most of his good score, in comparison with the criminal negligence of Clinton, though Iraq was not handled as well as it could have, but has ignored the dangerous porous southern border. He's also done some stupid things, like signing McCain-Feingold on the belief the SCOTUS would overturn it (they didn't).

That is only temporary. His real grade will be after his presidency, and how history turns out.

Crazed RabbitI'm pretty much with you, I just thought that it averages out to a C. The 'good' is most of his foreign policy and tax cuts. The 'bad' would be mainly domestic- the new Medicare entitlement, his miserable failures at selling social security/tax reform, allowing tons of pork with nary a veto, ect.

[Lemur]

On financial matters he's an easy F. I've never seen a man more enamored of debt and debt spending. And why oh why would a "conservative" president introduce a brand-spankin'-new entitlement program that is uneeded, unfunded, and utterly confusing?

Ye gods, a new entitlement. Once they're in, they're impossible to get rid of. I mean, it's one thing to cut off a poor person's medicare, but you don't get anything back from the elderly. They vote, and they vote with their pocketbooks, and as a group they don't seem to give a rat's hindquarters about the long-term strength of our nation.

Why why why?

[Reverend Joe]

Gah! Everyone pales in comparison with Teddy! :toff:

(Except Lincoln, of course.)

[Divinus Arma]

I gave him a C.

I am pretty pissed about his veto-pussiness over giant pork-filled budgets. What a schlong sucker. Federal restraint my arse.

I am even more pissed by his foul fornicating with the Fox. heh heh. Seriously, I am sick of america being ass-raped by el burro. El Norte needs to conduct some internal enforcement period.

This UAE thing is pretty outrageous and politically retarded. Duh?!?!

Aside from that, in comparison against the average of all previous presidetns he gets a "meh". Nothing special. Not horrible either. He gets bennies for having brass cojones to do what he thinks is right in the War and allowing the military freedom without micro-managing operational and tactical decisions.

[master of the puppets]

i give him a C, (nostalgic eh george) his most seen grade.:sweatdrop:

[Ironside]

Hmm actually looks like a f for me. Basically, the stuff he has done ok has been nullified by severe mistakes later on. And I can't find anything good about him.

For example:
Whatever impact he has had on the economy with his tax cuts, they certainly seem minor and been eaten up amd passed by excessive spending.

While the invasion was positive, Afghanistan has never been really secured and bin Laden is seemingly long forgotten.

As for Iraq, even if you only consider the only good reason for invasion (ousting Saddam), it's been treated as "war light" basically from the beginning with poor troop numbers, poor planning and poor training (for peacekeeping and other more non-combat issues). And successfully pissing off most of the world while on it.

Haven't seen to much of national politics in the US, but I can't remember any good stuff in there.

And for the Kyoto treaty that was dismissed on the basis of that we shall not accept any conservations on the American people (well one of the reasons atleast). Who is asking for conservation now? You may disagree with the Kyoto agreement and meniton it as a feeble or useless attemt, a politician eating his own words is very rarly a good thing.

The biggest divider in US politics for a long time, while some may like it, it's hardly good for a nation to have both sides barricaded into trenches.

Using dubious security/intellingence methods abroad, while not doing well on securing the homefront.

And what few possible good stuff do we have? Well, he's still good at making funny spoken mistakes, but his speechwriters have sadly improved that part a bit. He's been choking on a pretsel. :laugh4:

Seriously if he'd been mostly active on the home front and quite silent he would've passed as a mediocre president. But as things have happened and he's tactics has been very loud another scale needs to be used. And as it stands now it certainly looks like he'll end up on the lower scale on that list.

[Don Corleone]

I'm mildly suprised, but pleasantly so, to see the president receiving low marks. I gave him a D (granted, it would have been a D+).

He hasn't done much right in the past 6 years, in my book. Among the other crimes for which I cannot forgive him:

-Running the Iraq war on the cheap. We should have put everything we had into it and consequences be damned. You cannot be halfway pregnant and you cannot win a war with the minimal possible effort. I still don't know that I agree with the justification for the war in the first place, but now that we're there, it's just cruel not to do it 110%, cruel to the Iraqis and cruel to the soldiers on the ground.

-As I said in another post, we could appoint Al-Zarqawi himself to head the INS and get better results at stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into this country.

-Despite numerous campaign promises in 2000 & 2004, not one drop in the pigslop tray that is the federal budget has been touched & reformed. The 'cuts' to the poor you keep hearing about it is growth at reduced rates. Which brings us to our next point...

-WTF :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: is up with Medicare Part D (aka the Prescription Drug Benefit)?!?!? Does anyone, other than Pfeizer, Glaxo-Whomever-today, and the Insurance companies think it's helping?

-No words necessary for this next one: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/hmiers-100.jpg

-Finally, 'evildoers'? 'Axis of evil'? Come on out of 6th grade George! If you're pissed at the Iranians & North Koreans, call them what they are, terrorist states on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. We're not idiots, please don't treat us that way.

And yet, despite it all, sadly, ~:mecry: based on the alternatives, I do not for one moment regret voting for him both times. Christ, we need a shakeup in this country's political machine. I'm so tired of the one-party system...:wall:

[Bar Kochba]

GAH!! (btw wats with all the Gahs on every poll)

[JAG]

GAH!! (btw wats with all the Gahs on every poll)

That is both myth and tradition! GAH!

[Divinus Arma]

-No words necessary for this next one: https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/hmiers-100.jpg



:shudders:

No KIDDING!!! WTF was up with that?!?!?!?!?! :inquisitive:

Such BS. I actually forgot about that.

[Don Corleone]

:shudders:

No KIDDING!!! WTF was up with that?!?!?!?!?! :inquisitive:

Such BS. I actually forgot about that.

Forgot about it, or blocked it out of the scarred fragments that remained of your mind?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Guys, guys, Meirs was a bait-and-switch. Just thank Rove & Co. :2thumbsup:

Bush gets a "C" - a rather low one.

Pro's:
Conservative Justices
Generally Free Market
Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists*
Making Liberals Apoplectic

Con's:
Spending
Spending
Spending
Immigration/Border Integrity
*Just not so good at it


I think gentleman's C's would be fitting. :juggle2:

[Divinus Arma]

Guys, guys, Meirs was a bait-and-switch. Just thank Rove & Co. :2thumbsup:

See? I forgot about THAT too! Thanks for reminding me!


Bush gets a "C" - a rather low one.

Pro's:
Conservative Justices
Generally Free Market
Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists*
Making Liberals Apoplectic



Con's:
Spending
Spending
Spending
Immigration/Border Integrity
*Just not so good at it


I think gentleman's C's would be fitting. :juggle2:

I gave him a C too. For pretty much the same reasons up and down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

B-; for reasons noted above by CR, DA, and X-man.

Tachi'

I too like JQA and think him better than he has been given credit for.

...Did I just agree with Tachi?:inquisitive: ...:help:

Fortunately, we disagree pretty staunchly on most of the rest of your A-C choices.:2thumbsup: My universe is settling back to normal...

BTW, don't make "constitutionality" an important criteria for ranking Presidents (implied from Bush 43 summary comment) and then put FDR and Lincoln to the top of the list. Great they were, maybe, but great constitutionalists, nfw.

[Lemur]

Let's see, spendthrift, divisive, spendthrift, likes war on the cheap, spendthrift, attempts to give Presidency all sorts of new powers, spendthrift, calls himself "conservative" while exhibiting absolutely no conservative values, and did I say spendthrift? I think the comic book guy would say:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/WorstEver.gif

[Xiahou]

I've gotta say, while agreeing with most criticisms here, I don't understand the 'war on the cheap' criticism. It's cost thousands of soldiers their lives and hundreds of billions of dollars- what would you people call 'expensive'?:dizzy2:

Yeah, you could argue there were some planning/execution problems with the war plan- but I think 'war on the cheap' is just a meaningless and not particularly helpful slogan. :shrug:

[Divinus Arma]

I'm still waiting to see some determined soul yank out a poll from the archives with all of us crusty GOPers giving him high marks.

I'm too lazy to check, but I would guess that there is a marked difference between ratings now and a year ago...

[Divinus Arma]

I've gotta say, while agreeing with most criticisms here, I don't understand the 'war on the cheap' criticism. It's cost thousands of soldiers their lives and hundreds of billions of dollars- what would you people call 'expensive'?:dizzy2:

Yeah, you could argue there were some planning/execution problems with the war plan- but I think 'war on the cheap' is just a meaningless and not particularly helpful slogan. :shrug:

I think the point they make is that it should have been doen with 250,000 troops from the bat.

[Samurai Waki]

not too mention outfitting our soldiers with the all of the latest protective technology. Speaking of which my cousin just got back from Iraq:balloon2: Says its still pretty crappy over there...between the rotten food they were given to eat, the latrines being nothing but holes in the ground, and not being able to shower for 4 months solid...oh and getting mortared every other day.

This President...like LBJ recieves an F for putting money ahead of lives.

[Don Corleone]

I think the point they make is that it should have been doen with 250,000 troops from the bat.

That, and frankly, Rumsfeld should have driving a hummer around over there on patrol each and every day until they were all retro-fitted with armour. Yes, you 'go to war with the army you have', but you don't let yourself off the hook for putting your troops in harm's way because you're trying to cut corners.

[Devastatin Dave]

Guys, guys, Meirs was a bait-and-switch. Just thank Rove & Co. :2thumbsup:

Bush gets a "C" - a rather low one.

Pro's:
Conservative Justices
Generally Free Market
Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists*
Making Liberals Apoplectic

Con's:
Spending
Spending
Spending
Immigration/Border Integrity
*Just not so good at it


I think gentleman's C's would be fitting. :juggle2:

I gave him a D, thanks for posting about the same thoughts I had...

My fav President of all time is James Madison. He, in my opinion, saved our Republic when it was at a very weak point militarily and politically. He repelled the British. He was a small man (like me!!!) and did great things (honorable mention to Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson) to get our country ready for its defense. It was an amazing period in the Nation's history and unfortunately not remembered by many.

Just a quick note just for a DevDav moment...
WE BEAT YOU LIMEY TURKIES..... TWICE!!! TAKE THAT YOUR TEA DINKING, BISCUET EATING BASTARDS!!!:laugh4:

[Ironside]

Guys, guys, Meirs was a bait-and-switch. Just thank Rove & Co. :2thumbsup:

Bush gets a "C" - a rather low one.

Pro's:
Conservative Justices
Generally Free Market
Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists*
Making Liberals Apoplectic


I'm curious, how would you rank a very competent and reasonable left-wing politician? And no jokes about that they don't exist, they're just as common as the right-wing ones, non-existant that is :idea2:. See, I already covered that area :laugh4:

I was wondering as Conservative Justices is by default due to party and he's still not good at that (AFAIK a pic in this thread proves that), Generally Free Market is another default by any American politician with half a brain (takes a few decades to establish any other choise in the US, except protectionist), Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists* is basically responded by yourself and another one that comes by default due to 9/11 and finally Making Liberals Apoplectic. Sure the last one can be fun, but remember he's not doing it with style (Chavez is currently the leader on that post), but with seemingly incompitence.

Do you rank competence mainly through agreement with your own ideas?

As I indicated earlier, show me competence from his side and I might reduce my judgement on him.

Edit: might have been slighty strong in wording, but my initial thought was "is this what people consider to his good sides?" and the responce came from that thought.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bah. I'm lowering my grade to a low, maybe a middle to low, C. The stupid medicare thing (as Lemur put it: great, another entitlement!), the pure, unrelenting stupidness about the border, Harriet Miers, the large amounts of spending with no attempt to cutback, while threatening to veto any bill blocking his port deal. :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

[InsaneApache]

I gave him a D, thanks for posting about the same thoughts I had...

My fav President of all time is James Madison. He, in my opinion, saved our Republic when it was at a very weak point militarily and politically. He repelled the British. He was a small man (like me!!!) and did great things (honorable mention to Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson) to get our country ready for its defense. It was an amazing period in the Nation's history and unfortunately not remembered by many.

Just a quick note just for a DevDav moment...
WE BEAT YOU LIMEY TURKIES..... TWICE!!! TAKE THAT YOUR TEA DINKING, BISCUET EATING BASTARDS!!!:laugh4:

Do you mean this guy?


The British impressment of American seamen and the seizure of cargoes impelled Madison to give in to the pressure. On June 1, 1812, he asked Congress to declare war.

The young Nation was not prepared to fight; its forces took a severe trouncing. The British entered Washington and set fire to the White House and the Capitol.

And afterwards we were very nice to you and gave you back the colonies we'd recovered. :laugh4:

As an outsider I was going to abstain. Now I shall vote for 'Tricky Dicky' just to get my own back. :laugh4:

[Proletariat]

F+

He gets a plus since he isn't Gore or Kerry. This pretty much goes beyond just Bush, though. All this conservative power and all we really got was a tax cut and a screwed up Iraq war. The SCOTUS appointments don't impress me that much, since anything less than who he appointed would be a complete middle finger to everyone who voted for him. Even this he seemingly tried to screw up, anyhow.

I'm either not voting or voting Libertarian next time so I can just honestly throw my vote away instead of getting bamboozled.

(I'll upgrade him to a D- if he really gets this energy initiative going)

[Don Corleone]

I'm taking my plus away and downgrading the president to a D-. I forgot, no mention, not a word, not a whiff of condemnation for the end of private property rights in the United States, the abomination that is Kelo v. New London (2005). Quite possibly, the court case that will go down in history as the deciding date that the US of A returned to being an aristocracy and our Good Ole' Boy in chief hasn't a word of criticism. Of course not, all his friends are developers!

For him to have the brass cojones to propose the Federal Defense of Marriage Ammmendment and never once even utter a word against Kelo v. New London... I'm with Prole. Screw the Republicans, I'm voting Libertarian in 2008.

(For those of you outside the US, Kelo v. New London was a SCOTUS decision last year that when it comes to emminent domain, making local developers rich was a compelling interest and they could sieze property from taxpayers to give to developers for new developments that would claim to offer higher tax revenues, regardless of whether the municipality could pay fair market value for the property at the time of the seizure or not).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm curious, how would you rank a very competent and reasonable left-wing politician? [...]

I was wondering as Conservative Justices is by default due to party and he's still not good at that (AFAIK a pic in this thread proves that)
As I said, Harriet Meirs was a clever trick (or worked out that way). Bush certainly doesn't lose points for that. :balloon2:


Generally Free Market is another default by any American politician with half a brain (takes a few decades to establish any other choise in the US, except protectionist)
I might argue that anybody with a half a brain is free market, but it certainly isn't a default. As you pointed out, protectionism is the other main one in the American mainstream. I agree more with free market, so I think Bush is good in that category. Of course, every entitlement and such takes away from this category...


Committed to Blowing Up Terrorists* is basically responded by yourself and another one that comes by default due to 9/11
I don't know how Gore would have handled it, for example. I'd say Bush's actions couldn't be considered a "default."


and finally Making Liberals Apoplectic. Sure the last one can be fun, but remember he's not doing it with style (Chavez is currently the leader on that post), but with seemingly incompitence.
Liberals aren't angered most by Bush's errors but by some of his best work. Justices, for example. And I like apoplectic liberals. ~;p


Do you rank competence mainly through agreement with your own ideas?

As I indicated earlier, show me competence from his side and I might reduce my judgement on him.
What is competence? If a politician enacts policy that you strongly disagree with, would you regard him as competent? I think the spending policy in Washington is terribly destructive to the United States. But the spending is being done competently - far too competently, spending every freakin' dime and the next few generations' worth as well.

Just like everybody else in this thread, I view competence generally based on how well Bush enacts my idea of what's good.


DC, Prole, you guys make me want to lower my score. :sweatdrop:

And props for Alexander Hamilton, even though he wasn't President. I think he should've had the opportunity.

[Proletariat]

I'm beginning to think the best case scenario would be a Democratic POTUS winning in '08, with the conservatives still holding power in the House. Giving the Republicans this much power is like a girl who gives it up on the first night. They don't even have to try and woo use anymore, they've been given license to act like feckless swines. By now we should've had school vouchers, flung affirmative action to the gutter, and as much government reduction as possible. What a gyp.

I miss the Gingrich House where they actually acted like conservatives.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Preaching to the choir, ma'am. :juggle2:

[AntiochusIII]

I would've liked to see how Henry Clay would do as President, even if because he was so utterly famous. Andrew Jackson...meh. I'd call him an ass of a President. King Andrew, like they used to say.

Alexander Hamilton is, of course, among the most brilliant of all the Founding Fathers lot. It would certainly amuse me should I ever have a chance to read his Presidency from a history book. He was shot down by Aaron Burr long before that, though; besides, by that time the Democratic Republicans' star was on the rise.

Madison, in my opinion, was an excellent President. The famous Jefferson really wasn't that impressive in the office when it really comes off.

Teddy Roosevelt's Presidency seems to me a colorful Chavezesque Presidency with less antics and more substance -- after all, he's the leet among the Progressives; really, in my ignorant opinion he is better than most of the dumbasses sitting in the White House.

The British impressment of American seamen and the seizure of cargoes impelled Madison to give in to the pressure. On June 1, 1812, he asked Congress to declare war.

The young Nation was not prepared to fight; its forces took a severe trouncing. The British entered Washington and set fire to the White House and the Capitol.It was true. But that was not due to Madison's mishandling at all, but the D-R's philosophy of "no-standing-army-dammit!" that left the United States weak. At injury time ( ~;) ) Andrew Jackson scored a final goal at New Orleans that, if nothing else, equalised it all. Long before that, Baltimore successfully resisted Great Britain's attack impressively. And if you don't know, D.C. at the time was really just a half-built ghetto and the burning was more symbolic than physically damaging: the fall of any other major cities would've harmed the USA much more like, say, Boston, Baltimore, Charleston, Philadelphia, and New York.

And really, extreme Conservatism just cries out to get back to something like the 1880s-1900s again. Thanks and no thanks. Extreme Liberalism may've fit with my idea, but I don't think that's good for America, either. Partisanship is really just whoring for no good.

I just hope we have a new wave of politics crashing around the US right now; you know, something to raise the turmoil and confusion (so at least the damn thing could at least be fun, if the result turns disastrous) like another Populist movement or the New Deal. Or perhaps some crazy candidates like William Jennings Bryan rising up to take the banner. They always result in the antics of the mainstream politicians being in control again when they actually have to fight for political survival. Like how the Populists trounced major arses in an election a century and more ago and convinced the two mainstreams to adapt some of their platforms.

Competence does not equate political agreement, and vice versa. Emperor Basil II was highly competent even if you disagree with his little Bulgar slaughtering habit, or Vlad the Impaler even if his tactics are highly disagreeable.

[Xiahou]

I'm beginning to think the best case scenario would be a Democratic POTUS winning in '08, with the conservatives still holding power in the House. Giving the Republicans this much power is like a girl who gives it up on the first night. They don't even have to try and woo use anymore, they've been given license to act like feckless swines. By now we should've had school vouchers, flung affirmative action to the gutter, and as much government reduction as possible. What a gyp.

I miss the Gingrich House where they actually acted like conservatives.
If Bush gets another SCOTUS appointment during his term, a Dem President wouldn't be all bad. I'll not likely vote for one, but at least the wanton spending would dry up quickly with a different party in the executive than the legislative.

[Bartix]

If Bush gets another SCOTUS appointment during his term, a Dem President wouldn't be all bad. I'll not likely vote for one, but at least the wanton spending would dry up quickly with a different party in the executive than the legislative.
I think you will want your checks and balances back, yes!
Now there are cheques, but no balancing.

I gave your chief a Gah!
Because I have bad opinions of him, but am so not qualified to grade and have opinions i have, and mostly hear bad stories from press delighted to bring bad stories.

[Ironside]

As I said, Harriet Meirs was a clever trick (or worked out that way). Bush certainly doesn't lose points for that. :balloon2:

Considering how most stuff is handled by this goverment, that was luck. A few more of those moves might actually give him some credit though.


I might argue that anybody with a half a brain is free market, but it certainly isn't a default. As you pointed out, protectionism is the other main one in the American mainstream. I agree more with free market, so I think Bush is good in that category. Of course, every entitlement and such takes away from this category...

Damn missed that part of US policy. You got a point there. :brood:


I don't know how Gore would have handled it, for example. I'd say Bush's actions couldn't be considered a "default."

Blowing up terrorists is default. Admittably Bush is far from a default leader when it comes to this and his actions varies from semi-competence to sheer incompetence.


Liberals aren't angered most by Bush's errors but by some of his best work. Justices, for example. And I like apoplectic liberals. ~;p
Best work? show me what this is!!
Well they (the Democrats) do have a tendency to overreact. My guess is that's because they are in such a bad shape that they only can rumble around.
As they actual end choises for the supreme court haven't been that bad I'll consider giving him an F+, but better stuff than this is needed to pull him up to the D-scale.


What is competence? If a politician enacts policy that you strongly disagree with, would you regard him as competent? I think the spending policy in Washington is terribly destructive to the United States. But the spending is being done competently - far too competently, spending every freakin' dime and the next few generations' worth as well.

Just like everybody else in this thread, I view competence generally based on how well Bush enacts my idea of what's good.


I'll formulate myself better than I did last time. Basically, I was reacting on that Bush gets a better grade simply because he isn't Kerry or Gore (whom haven't been tried and cannot really be judged, neither of them seems to been good candidates, but to grade them on that can't be done).

And to be more speciffic about compentence I was wondering about how you rate people when you disagree with them. If a protectionist (something I disagree with) is elected and is still doing this policy very well and makes the economy grow, I'll consider him as competent even if I disagree with the policy. That is as long as the policy isn't insane (a very compent person with the intent of destroying a nation can't be rated competent but rather the opposite).
And yes a politicians I disagree with still get an uphill, but not a mountain.

That's why I asked about your oppinion on a good left-wing politician. Can he ever get an A?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Only if he's incompetent. ~;p

Seriously, I guess one could get an A from me. Theoretically. There isn't a precedent for that in history, though, and "A" Presidents are few and far between.

A leftist politician would probably have to abandon his political views on an issue to get an "A" from me. Call me biased, but I don't think even working socialism would be good - something about the moral fibre of America being torn and all that pompous stuff.

I'm probably too partisan to give a left-wing politician an "A" if they deserved it, but I think you'd have a problem finding such a creature. :idea2:

[KafirChobee]

Wanted to give him a "C" (minus), but his unappologetic manner, arrogance, and ignorance of economics (and him with a baought and paid for MBA) brought it down to a D. Then, I had to consider his other policys toward seperation of church and state (which he obviuosly opposes), his attitude to freedom of speech (unless it agrees with his - it should be illegal), his policy to investigate all those that oppose him, and his unwillingness to compromise. He ended up with an "F" even before I considered his War in Iraq or his failure to curtail terrorism. Going on 5 years and Osama is still out of sight and healthy.

As for top Presidents? In modern history: Ike, FDR, LBJ (and Kennedy), and Clinton - I would add Woodrow Wilson except he was unable to sell the congress on the new world order (or salvage the army and navy after the war - WWI). In the more distant past? Teddy (he brought us into the world as a modern nation, and his efforts for the environment and for creating the park services to guard our wildlife areas), Lincoln (because he did save the Union), and Washington because he perceived the probable abuse of powers in the excutive branch and warned about curtailing them.

:sweatdrop:

[Strike For The South]

He gets a G

[yesdachi]

In relation to how he is doing compared to other recent presidents I’ll give him a “B” but only an “F” for how he has dealt with his critics. Come on George W., stop pussyfooting around with these Nancy’s. You can’t run for president again, what do you have to loose? Shut these sissies up!

I would give him a better grade if he didn’t spend sooooo much darn money!

Here is my grades for other recent presidents:

B - Richard Nixon

C - Gerald R. Ford

F - James Carter

A - Ronald Reagan

B - George Bush Sr.

D - Bill Clinton

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmm....


Kennedy = C+

Johnson = D

Nixon = C-

Ford = B

Carter = B-

Reagan = B+

Bush 41 = C+

Clinton = C

Bush 43 = C

Rationale:

Kennedy. Hard to rate. He screwed up by half-doing the Bay of Pigs op handed off to him by the Ike admin, and his weakness in the face-to-face with Kruschev led to the deployment of missiles in Cuba. He did handle that crisis damn well once it blew up. He cut taxes, spurred the economy, handled the press and attention well. Could've been stronger on civil rights. Hard to say if he would have expanded US efforts in Vietnam as did Johnson. Space initiative was pure genius. Mostly, the grade reflects the fact that his efforts were cut short and it is hard to assess what he'd have become.

Johnson. Was a debacle. Powerful proponent of civil rights and staunch believer in helping the lot of the poorest Americans. However, his "Great Society" has been frought with unintended negative consequences. Vietnam, regrettably, defined his foreign policy efforts. Despite a number of successful covert efforts in Africa and South America, his ramp-up, micro-management of, and failure to turn loose the military once they were there let Vietnam happen when it shouldn't have, then fail when we might've won.

Nixon. Brilliant foreign policy. Playing the PRC off against the CCCP to weaken both was sheer poetry. Vietnam closing phases were unpopular, but brought some resolution. Domestic policies were way too socialist with price freezes, national policy for home heater temperatures and the expansion of the social welfare system. Criminal participation in the Watergate coverup not only forced his resignation, but crippled the last 20 months of his presidency and helped create the weakness of position/morale that allowed the collapse of Vietnam etc.

Ford. Never had a chance to operate in his own right, since the Watergate affair made it almost impossible for a GOPer to win in '76. That he came as close as he did was surprising. His Pardon of Nixon was a superb decision. Amercia was spared the spectacle of seeing the former President jailed for criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Weak political starting position gave Ford little leverage to accomplish significant results.

Carter. When he was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad he was horrid. Carter salvaged the Presidency with his strong sense of personal honor and "rightness." His negotiating success with the Camp David accords and his emphasis on human rights as a central element of policy stand to his credit. His efforts to promote human rights torpedoed his Presidency by allowing for the toppling of the Shah in favor of Khomeni [spell?] and engendering the hostage crisis. However, the attention to human rights did also ramp up the pressure against the CCCP during the Cold War -- a factor that historians appreciate more and more as time progresses. Carter did not handle the Commander in Chief role well and was a notorious micromanager, and this also cost him points.

Reagan. Easily the most important presidency since FDR. Cut taxes and created the modern U.S. "growth 9 in 10 years" economy. Used economics as a weapon to hammer the CCCP into the dustbin of history and rebuilt the military strength of the USA. Returned political conservatism/small government as a viable (and eventually dominant) element of American politics. However, he failed to use his immense political capital in 1985 and early 1986 to take on the entitlements issue or illegal immigration; his deficit spending did win the cold war (but no efforts to explain how the deficit would be handled later were made); his willingness to let subordinates side-step Congress for him (e.g. Iran-COntra) also counts against.

Bush 41. What might have been. Experienced both politically and with foreign policy, he was the consumate Washington insider. Skilled enough to build a powerful coalition in 1991, he lacked the sense of decisiveness Yanks want in a leader. "No new taxes" went on to cut his legs out from under him as Clinton used a short/modest recession and a 3rd party to hammer him out of office.

Clinton. Much ado about nothing. Clinton eroded the military as a fighting tool and achieved little in the way of foreign policy successes. Domestically, he presided over the Republican return to legislative power and domestic infighting and gridlock shot down most of his domestic agenda. Strikingly, his Presidency also featured no real debacles either (that he failed to see the changes in terrorism was hardly unique either within the USA or abroad). Under his guidance, the USA took more of a collegial approach to foreign affairs and de-emphasized its leadership role. This stance enhanced America's popularity with much of the world, who accepted US leadership during the cold war by necessity but saw little place for it subsequently. American political diviseness ramped up to its highest levels since 1912 -- or possible since 1800; and Clinton managed to get himself impeached (2nd time in two+ centuries).

Bush 43. Divisiveness is the central component of this Presidency -- though this is conditional, rather than a specific result of Bush's efforts. Domestically, "W" has outspent most liberals and done little to curtail government growth or spending, control the border, or curb illegal immigration. His tax cuts pushed the economy back almost to Reagan levels. The War on Terror following the 9-11-01 attacks will define this Presidency, and it will be years before this can be assessed fully -- and some of the successes must remain quiet for decades. Whether or not Iraq works will probably come to define "W's" verdict of history. Natural disasters revealed that the non-military components of national government are only haphazardly effective. This is a systemic problem, but being the Chief exec when then come to light tends to tar one a bit.

[KafirChobee]

Seamus, you omit other factors in your grading scale. I tend to agree on some. However, one could easily give Kennedy a B+ for his efforts and an A+ that LBJ actually followed his social plan (at all, considering that by doing so ended the Souths following of the Democratic party - DCC).

Carter? The shame is, he had a vision - a concept of how governemnt ought to work. He had already proven it in Georgia (though after he left the White powers that be reversed his progressive reforms ... in a decade most of Jimmy's reforms were gone, and it was back to the "good olde boys" ways of doing things). To blame the revolution of Irans' on Jimmy is like blaming the moon for revolving around the earth - it was inevitable. The Shah was like Saddam - only amplify that by 10. A week before the revolution, ABC ran a documentary about how well Iran was spreading the ideals of the West, how women had more independence there than anywhere else in the middle-east. Then within a week it all changed, the Shah running for his life, etc. What brought Jimmy down wa "NightLine", every day Americans being fed that American diplomatic envoys were being held hostage (remember the crap from the Republicans? "Why wasn't there a "safe room" .... most Americans went "Say what?".... wtf is a safe room? 'Course we all know what it is today ... somewhere for the truely rich to go to ignore the rest of us.). Then of course there was the "ARMS FOR HOSTAGES agreement" that candidate Reagan agreed to to become President.

One thing, most Americans, do not grasp is the power that an honest President has in the world community - Carter was the last truely powerful President we have had.

Reagan was the most corrupt (Nixon was simply a man with ghosts - the Kennedys), 'til Bush43 came along. These two men have done more for the truely wealthy and less for the needy than any two men in history.

I do agree giving Ford, your grade. If nothing else he was honest. It may even be a shame he wasn't elected on his own terms. Still, he gets to go down in history as the only non-elected President. And his VP (Rockefellor) as being the first one found dead in bed with a minor. Still, in all fairness he tried - and the congress didn't (as much his party's as the oppositions). Plus, SNL had a hay day with him.

Reagan committed treason to be preident, Period. He leant the idea that all must be free enterprise and screw freedom. Reagan was a Nazi - or, atleast his advisors were (gee, what a surprise half of them are now in the present administration).

Bush41, unfortunately (for him) he sounds like a sissy. Not that he ever was, after all he was a bonifide war hero - according to a propagand film. Still, he had (has) integrity and attempted to resolve many of the fubars his previous master created. I voted for him .... was real torn (I am a Democrat - ended up loving Bill, but a sure thing is better than a maybe ..IMO) but, he really comes accross as being sincere. And he is one hell of alot smarter than his kids (least ways he never embarrassed his Dad, or the nation).

Still, to go back and give an "A" for a presidency, one must go back to Ike. He ended a conflict with honor, created an atmosphere of progressive world order, permitted the attrocities in the South to continue (j/K - he did turn on the hoses in Birmingham, Biloxi, Little Rock and elsewhere - tho), he made Americans (all) feel safe. The Republicans thought they had one of theirs in the "House", and the Democrats knew he was one of theirs - there was no division, just acceptance of an honest man in the ultimate seat of the worlds power.

Giving Bush43 anything above a "D-" has more expaining than the bit of pratteling you mention. This man has done more to absolve the "Union" than anyone since Lincoln (whom I ranked highly for his fortitude in keeping it together). Bush43 is the 50.01% president - he believes that a tenth of one percent dictates dictatorial powers to him. Thing is, even his party is turning against him - stick a fork in the clown ... he is deffinately done, and so are his cronies. Thank God, Praise the Lord ... thank you Jesus! And, Prais Mary full of grace ..... He is deffinately an F- - - - . :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, you omit other factors in your grading scale. I tend to agree on some. However, one could easily give Kennedy a B+ for his efforts and an A+ that LBJ actually followed his social plan (at all, considering that by doing so ended the Souths following of the Democratic party - DCC).

I take your point, but I don't view social progressivism as the primary goal of the Presidency. Ending the 2nd class citizen status of blacks in the U.S. was necessary and correct (though sadly incomplete albeit much improved). Kennedy doesn't score badly in my eyes, but the Johnson takeover certainly put a lot of the Kennedy impact to the side). Johnson's social goals were noble, but using government as the central tool of a social re-engineering project is self defeating. Coupled with his mis-handling of foreign affairs and he scores poorly for me.


Carter? The shame is, he had a vision - a concept of how governemnt ought to work. He had already proven it in Georgia (though after he left the White powers that be reversed his progressive reforms ... in a decade most of Jimmy's reforms were gone, and it was back to the "good olde boys" ways of doing things). To blame the revolution of Irans' on Jimmy is like blaming the moon for revolving around the earth - it was inevitable. The Shah was like Saddam - only amplify that by 10. A week before the revolution, ABC ran a documentary about how well Iran was spreading the ideals of the West, how women had more independence there than anywhere else in the middle-east. Then within a week it all changed, the Shah running for his life, etc. What brought Jimmy down wa "NightLine", every day Americans being fed that American diplomatic envoys were being held hostage (remember the crap from the Republicans? "Why wasn't there a "safe room" .... most Americans went "Say what?".... wtf is a safe room? 'Course we all know what it is today ... somewhere for the truely rich to go to ignore the rest of us.). Then of course there was the "ARMS FOR HOSTAGES agreement" that candidate Reagan agreed to to become President.

One thing, most Americans, do not grasp is the power that an honest President has in the world community - Carter was the last truely powerful President we have had.

Carter didn't create the conditions for revolution in Iran, granted, and while we could argue whether Husseing was worse the Pehlavi or vice versa all day, it is clear that both were thugs -- Reza just dressed better.

Did a number of GOP'ers hammer Carter harder than deserved over the hostage crisis -- quite possibly. There were more than a few who were still bitter over the attacks on the GOP during the last years of Nixon's admin.

I've never been convinced of the argument that the arms/hostages shenanigans began prior to the administration -- and I am fairly sure that Reagan would have defeated Carter even had the hostage crisis wound up that Summer.


Reagan was the most corrupt (Nixon was simply a man with ghosts - the Kennedys), 'til Bush43 came along. These two men have done more for the truely wealthy and less for the needy than any two men in history.

We're on different pages here. Nixon may have been haunted a bit by the Kennedys - but I think his defeat in California affected him more.


I do agree giving Ford, your grade. If nothing else he was honest. It may even be a shame he wasn't elected on his own terms. Still, he gets to go down in history as the only non-elected President. And his VP (Rockefellor) as being the first one found dead in bed with a minor. Still, in all fairness he tried - and the congress didn't (as much his party's as the oppositions). Plus, SNL had a hay day with him.

I think Chase's career was literally MADE by that.


Reagan committed treason to be preident, Period. He leant the idea that all must be free enterprise and screw freedom. Reagan was a Nazi - or, atleast his advisors were (gee, what a surprise half of them are now in the present administration).

Nope, don't see eye to eye with you here at all.


Bush41, unfortunately (for him) he sounds like a sissy. Not that he ever was, after all he was a bonifide war hero - according to a propagand film. Still, he had (has) integrity and attempted to resolve many of the fubars his previous master created. I voted for him .... was real torn (I am a Democrat - ended up loving Bill, but a sure thing is better than a maybe ..IMO) but, he really comes accross as being sincere. And he is one hell of alot smarter than his kids (least ways he never embarrassed his Dad, or the nation).

I agree with you that he set out to change a number of the things Reagan had put in place -- though I differ with you on the value of most of those changes. Clearly an honourable fellow. Don't know if I'd call him a war "hero" -- he didn't smash the enemy as much as got knocked about by them -- but he served in combat and tried his best.


Still, to go back and give an "A" for a presidency, one must go back to Ike. He ended a conflict with honor, created an atmosphere of progressive world order, permitted the attrocities in the South to continue (j/K - he did turn on the hoses in Birmingham, Biloxi, Little Rock and elsewhere - tho), he made Americans (all) feel safe. The Republicans thought they had one of theirs in the "House", and the Democrats knew he was one of theirs - there was no division, just acceptance of an honest man in the ultimate seat of the worlds power.

I actually like Ike and his record pretty well. After Truman chose to defend against the Chinese attack without a true counter-attack, Ike really wasn't in a position to shift towards a more aggressive stance and did wind things up reasonably quickly (which is only intelligent if you're not going to go and win it outright).


Giving Bush43 anything above a "D-" has more expaining than the bit of pratteling you mention. This man has done more to absolve the "Union" than anyone since Lincoln (whom I ranked highly for his fortitude in keeping it together). Bush43 is the 50.01% president - he believes that a tenth of one percent dictates dictatorial powers to him. Thing is, even his party is turning against him - stick a fork in the clown ... he is deffinately done, and so are his cronies. Thank God, Praise the Lord ... thank you Jesus! And, Prais Mary full of grace ..... He is deffinately an F- - - - . :2thumbsup:

His administration is too secretive. Some of this is necessary in pursuing the war on terror, but they do tend to keep everything hush hush down to the breakfast menus....overkill. I don't see the powermonger you do. Nor do I believe that Bush is "driven" by the religious right. Most of them are actually a bit annoyed with him for playing the Washington game too much -- remember the gripes over the Myers nomination. By-the-by, he's a prod, so the emphasis on a Hail Mary would probably not fit his personal style of prayer. As to the verdict of history on Bush 43, remember that everybody tends to view their current time as the "greatest" or the "worst" and usually we figure out later that that was not the case.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

D. He's just not very...competent IMNSHO.

[yesdachi]

I have decided to change my grade on Carter; I’ll give him a “B”. After a bit of reading, it appears that no other president in history has done as much as Carter to re-invigorate the Republican Party. Thanks Jimmy, your terrible foreign policy in the Middle East and in Central America combined with gas shortages, a 20% inflation rate, giving away the panama canal and a dozen other debacles made it a piece of cake for the GOP to slide into power! :laugh4:

I would have given Carter an “A” but in 79’ the regime that he let replace the Shah also cultivated the modern terrorist movement that threatens all of us today and I just have to deduct some grade for that.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

never mind all this politics why is there no E you just missed E out DISCRIMINATION i will not stand for it the alphabet must be complete you monsters! :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3