Best Presidents Poll: Pick 7 all time. (90s, Woodrow, drugs, slavery)

[wutitiz]

I don't know how Clinton gets on the list. What were his major accomplishments? He presided over a relatively good economy, so he gets props for that. But he didn't do a whole lot to bring it about. He benefitted from being in office during the peak productive years of baby boomers. In 1992 baby boomers ranged in age from 28 to 46.

This was an admin plagued by scandal, starting with the Travel Office scandal in early 1993, where they tried to frame a worker using the IRS and FBI so that they could replace him with cronies. Also plagued with DOJ debacles from Waco to Elian Gonzales. He signed two major gun control laws, one of which was an exercise in absurdity (the "assault weapons" ban) and later expired. He did little that was noteworthy foreign-policy-wise. He inherited a mess in the mid east, and arguably left it a big mess, setting the stage for the cluster*** we see today. He set the stage for the housing bubble with his activities with James Johnson of Fannie Mae, and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

He did a lot wrong, and little great. Although he never made much money before becoming prez, afterwards he became fabulously wealthy. Biill & Hill are said to have a net worth around $200 million now, mostly from speaking fees.
Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton | Charles Ferguson

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I don't know how Clinton gets on the list. What were his major accomplishments? He presided over a relatively good economy, so he gets props for that. But he didn't do a whole lot to bring it about. He benefitted from being in office during the peak productive years of baby boomers. In 1992 baby boomers ranged in age from 28 to 46.

This was an admin plagued by scandal, starting with the Travel Office scandal in early 1993, where they tried to frame a worker using the IRS and FBI so that they could replace him with cronies. Also plagued with DOJ debacles from Waco to Elian Gonzales. He signed two major gun control laws, one of which was an exercise in absurdity (the "assault weapons" ban) and later expired. He did little that was noteworthy foreign-policy-wise. He inherited a mess in the mid east, and arguably left it a big mess, setting the stage for the cluster*** we see today. He set the stage for the housing bubble with his activities with James Johnson of Fannie Mae, and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

He did a lot wrong, and little great. Although he never made much money before becoming prez, afterwards he became fabulously wealthy. Biill & Hill are said to have a net worth around $200 million now, mostly from speaking fees.
Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton | Charles Ferguson

The whole issue of whether a President should get credit for a good economy under his watch is a difficult one. I maintain that he should. I give both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton credit for an improving/good economy under their watch? Why? First of all, I think everyone agrees that they would have gotten the blame if the economy had been bad. I think the biggest example of this is Jimmy Carter. One would be hard pressed to identify anything he specifically did that caused inflation of 15% and unemployment of 10%. Yet, this happened while he was on watch and he is generally considered a poor President, largely because of that. If this is true, the reverse of the statement should apply as well. Second, both Reagan and Clinton did pursue policies that probably helped the economy while they were on watch. Reagan cut taxes. Clinton reformed the tax structure in a way that encouraged the Fed to keep interest rates down

I would say what people do remember most about Bill Clinton is that he was a highly articulate President who presided over a fairer tax structure that lead to a booming economy. He also got policies enacted that meant a great deal to ordinary people, like the Family Medical Leave Act.

Finally, most of the "scandals" you allude to were simply political garbage manufactured by his opponents. The "Travel Office" Scandal was not a scandal at all. A President has the right to hire and fire his own people for jobs like that. That's the law.

I would rate Clinton #7 out of the 7 top Presidents.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by markg91359

He also got policies enacted that meant a great deal to ordinary people, like the Family Medical Leave Act.

Finally, most of the "scandals" you allude to were simply political garbage manufactured by his opponents. The "Travel Office" Scandal was not a scandal at all. A President has the right to hire and fire his own people for jobs like that. That's the law.

I would rate Clinton #7 out of the 7 top Presidents.

Yes, he had the right to fire the travel office people. He could have just done that, and there would have been no problem. The problem came in when the admin sent the FBI and IRS after them and tried to railroad them.

I had forgotten that the Travel Office scandal led to another scandal known as 'filegate.' Sevens months after firing him, the wh got access to the former TO director's fbi files, obviously digging for dirt that they could use to justify the termination. Then it was learned that the wh had gotten access to FBI files of hundreds political enemies. They came through a guy named Craig Livingstone who was head of the WH 'office of personnel security.' Livingstone was a compaign worker who had no security background except for having worked as a bar bouncer. To this day AFAIK, no one ever admitted to having hired him. Guess he just got on the WH payroll by magic. But I suppose that is again "not a scandal at all." Am I right?

[Snowball7]

I think the high Clinton count is a symptom of 3 or 4 factors,
such as:

1. Recent-memory effect
2. Better-than the two we've had since effect
2. Thinking Clinton was somehow responsible for a better economy effect
3. No credit to Republican congress (controlled both houses) effect
4. No credit to overarching societal factors (computer revolution) effect
5. Lingering charisma effect
6. Globalism was still young, hadn't exported our jobs yet effect

[tjarado]

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Jackson
6. Franklin Roosevelt
7. Eisenhower

[sargentodiaz]

Originally Posted by tjarado

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Jackson
6. Franklin Roosevelt
7. Eisenhower

I do not understand why FDR seems to come up so much.

Along with Wilson, he was one of the most socialist/progressive presidents around. In spite of his posturing, he was determined to get us into the European war and some theorists feel he manipulated Japan into attacking us. He also gave away eastern Europe to Stalin and did nothing to stop the expansion of the USSR with its vassal states.

It should also be noticed that he did nothing to stop the segregation of the military - that was left to Truman. He was, in many ways, a rich, white, protestant individual who cared only about his political career and expansion of government programs - of which, many helped his rich friends.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by sargentodiaz

I do not understand why FDR seems to come up so much.

Along with Wilson, he was one of the most socialist/progressive presidents around. In spite of his posturing, he was determined to get us into the European war and some theorists feel he manipulated Japan into attacking us. He also gave away eastern Europe to Stalin and did nothing to stop the expansion of the USSR with its vassal states.

It should also be noticed that he did nothing to stop the segregation of the military - that was left to Truman. He was, in many ways, a rich, white, protestant individual who cared only about his political career and expansion of government programs - of which, many helped his rich friends.

I just love people who think that calling something or someone "socialist" or "progressive" is actually an argument against him/ it. Anyone who really believes that needs a lesson on logic and the meaning of "ad hominen" attacks. FDR's measures were primarily aimed at getting the country out of the Great Depression and perhaps, more importantly, preventing the utter destitution and even starvation that many people were facing at that time. The country was very slow to recover from the Depression, but that had to do with the fact that not enough deficit spending was going on to stimulate the economy the way it needed to be stimulated from an economic decline of that magnitude. The growth in employment and GDP that occurred when this country engaged in massive deficit spending in World War II proves that point and than some.

FDR had the foresight to realize that being involved in World War II was not an option for this country. He was intelligent enough to realize that fighting such a war would be easier if we had allies. So, he undertook extreme measures to keep Britain and the USSR in the war. German sympathizers might see this as "provoking war", but they'd be the only group that would see that.

FDR gave away nothing. Eastern Europe was under the occupation of the Red Army and they weren't going to give back Poland or the other Eastern Bloc countries without another war. No one in America wanted to fight another war simply to prevent them from being occupied by Russian.

Every public figure in the whole country could have been more forceful when it came to the issue of integration. FDR did secure some employment concessions for minorities in plants producing war materiel for the government under contract. The truth is that in 1941 that integrating the armed forces would have been difficult and disruptive to too many people. Anything that could have interfered with the war effort had to be avoided if simply for that reason. When Truman did desegregate the armed services in 1948, no war was going on, and the number of Americans in uniform had dropped sharply. There wasn't nearly the amount of "heavy lifting" involved that would have been the case back at the beginning of World War II.

FDR pursued measures that I'm convinced would ultimately have ended the Great Depression. He created a successful strategy that not only insured an American/Allied victory in World War II, but he did so with minimum loss of American lives, considering the magnitude of the war and the huge number of Americans who were required to serve in the armed forces. The only thing I could add to this was an amazing ability on his part to speak to the people and obtain their support. These are the reasons he deserves to rank among the greatest American Presidents. I have no beef against either Washington or Jefferson, but compared to FDR, they had a very easy time in office.

[sargentodiaz]

FDR pursued measures that I'm convinced would ultimately have ended the Great Depression

I don't have links at hand but many economists believe FDR's programs actually lengthened the Great Depression.

[Snowball7]

FDR was easily one of the very worst presidents.
He set the precedent of the enslavement of the American people
to big government, and destruction of individual liberty.
He knew about Pearl Harbor, not only provoked it with his policies
but also allowed it to happen with foreknowledge. Just look up
interviews and books with Robert Stinnett. He stole personal wealth
away from the American people by confiscating their gold.
FDR was part of the Communist conspiracy in this country, laid out
by his cousin Clinton Roosevelt, who was trying to bring in a more controlling
federally dominant regime into the United States as early as 1837.
FDR was a conditioner propagandist, he made the people believe
they needed to rely on the state for necessities and sacrifice their
lives, freedoms and consciences for the "good" of the state.
He virtually always obfuscated the truth from the people and did
the bidding of his masters, the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, and Baruchs.
He had ties to these groups which started the Communist revolution in Russia.
The van Rosenfelt family (changed name to Roosevelt and dropped the "van")
were Dutch Jews and the Delano family were Italian and Spanish Jews involved in the West Indies Co.
The first Rosenfelt to come to America was Claes Rosenvelt, who made a fortune
in the cloth business in New York in the latter 1600s and was a primary in founding
the Bank of New York. Winston Churchill, half-Jewish himself on his mother's side,
was a natural ally/co-conspirator with FDR. Bernard Baruch was Churchill's mentor
and directly saved Churchill's fortune from the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which
was an engineered event. Their masters were the same financial elites
whom desired to reinstate control over Germany, having lost it with the rise of the
Nazi party.
please no responses, and I won't clutter the thread further. No reason to go on,
I have the right to express my viewpoint until it is taken away someday.
Best wishes to all, I am not an "anti-Semite" and do not have any ill feelings against
Jewish people or Zionists, whether individually or in a collective, nor do I oppose the authority of the United States federal government, its allies or laws. I believe many of the most important historical facts and motivations are covered up by those who control
information. I have no desire to expound further or engage in a "debate".

[2nd trick op]

[quote=2nd trick op;32357451]
(tie) F D Roosevelt
(tie) Reagan
[quote]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

LOL, that's not the way history is going to go down. Roosevelt and Reagan are total opposites. Roosevelt pulled the country out of the Great Depression. Reagan with his tax cuts for the rich, destroyed the middle class in this country, and we have been in a downward spiral ever since.

Go ahead and try to equate Reagan and Roosevelt if you want, but after Reagan fanboys are dead and gone, I don't think historians are going to see it that way.

I put FDR and Reagan on equal footing because, domestic issues aside, both faced and permanently removed a totalitarian threat to Constitutional pluralism.

When more of the younger members here recognize the difference between partisan sniping and the discussion of a broader sweep of history, they might be ready to play in a stronger league.
.