Who is the best president of all time?

[dcoles11]

We had a who is the worst president of all time post. Who is the best?

[zaxx19]

Lincoln, and it isnt even that close.

No other president faced such a crisis while in office.

No other responded with such fortitude,clarity, and competence to the circumstances he found himself in.

Honorable mention:

FDR-Washington-Jefferson-Reagan-Teddy Roosevelt

These guys are like an 8.0 or 8.5 to Lincolns 10.

[Daliman]

Yeah, but he was gay, so he shouldn't have been allowed to marry, and never would have been president were it widey known.

Oh, wait, I forgot, he married a woman. It's ok to marry someone if yer gya, as long as they ain't the same sex.

Silly me.

[MtSmalls]

I think the historical evaluation of Lincoln and FDR would be pretty close.

Lincoln's accomplishments, the grace and fortitude with which they were accomplished are clearly at the top of the scale. It would have been fascinating to see how he might have handled the Reconstruction better, but I guess we'll never know.

FDR's handling of the Depression, WW II, his own physical disability, and of course, being the only President elected four times, are a tremendous legacy of their own

[Zeno]

George Washington.

Also, to wax into hyperbole and the hackneyed to keep up with trends: End of Thread.


-Zeno

[zaxx19]

Yeah, but he was gay, so he shouldn't have been allowed to marry, and never would have been president were it widey known.

Oh, wait, I forgot, he married a woman. It's ok to marry someone if yer gya, as long as they ain't the same sex.

Silly me.

OK.....THAT MAKES JUST A TON OF SENSE.

BTW:
ACCORDING TO THE GAYSTABLISHMENT(im gonna patent that) EVERY PROMINENT FIGURE FROM ABOUT 370 B.C. TILL PRESENT DAY WAS OR IS A HOMOSEXUAL. Oh and like 25% of men and 40% of all women are gay or bi....just a bunch of hooey.

[Dr. Strangelove]

No need to get defensive 'cuz you like the cack.

[CORed]

I can't argue with Lincoln, but I would move Jefferson from honorable mention to second place Why? Two words. Louisiana Purchase.

[Broken Glass Can]

Too much credit is being given to Presidents who just happened to be President when a certain crisis occurred. The measure should be, did they handle it better than another person would have, given the same circumstances?

Washington shines for this reason. The way he established precedents was masterful. Imagine that Washington had died in 1788, and we had to pick either Adams or Jefferson to be the first President. Neither could have done nearly as well, although for different reasons.

I do give Lincoln credit for his humility in running the Civil War. If he had pushed the Emancipation Proclamation too soon, he would have had riots in the North. He kept his eye on the ball, sticking with Grant was clearly good for the war effort.

FDR was fine for his PR abilities, but his policies did little to cure the depression. Giving him credit for handling the depression makes no more sense than giving King credit (the PM in Canada), but they often get credit just because they happened to be in office at the time. Unfortunately, Hitler probably deserves some credit for ending the worldwide depression by creating a war. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

TR gets a lot of credit for the policies of McKinley, who was the brains behind the anti-trust reform policy. But if you die, the credit goes to your successor. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Like Lincoln, I think W deserves credit for keeping his eyes on the ball, despite the slings from political opportunists. The big picture matters, and that is his focus - good for him (and for all of us).

[Felix_Nietsche]

1. Washington (he is the father of our country. A mediocre general but a brilliant president who set the standard for all future presidents).
2. Lincoln
3. Jefferson (Lousiana purchase)
4. Reagan (won the cold war, cut taxes and govt revenue DOUBLED. Unfortunately the Democratic controlled congress spent the increased revenue and then some. Restored American pride after the fool Jimmy Carter tried his best to destroy the country both economically and thru an inept foreign policy.)
5. Teddy Roosevelt (Panama Canal)

Over-rated:
FDR:
FDR was a genius at PR but all his work programs failed to end the depression. Lucky for him WW2 came and bailed out the economy and FDR came out smelling like a rose. FDR's negotiations for post WW2 Europe set the US behind the 8-ball. Stalin played the ailing FDR like a fiddle. The state department under FDR was infested with soviet spys and FDR failed to take any actions to correct this problem. My grand mother worshipped FDR....Yuck. Also FDR did everything he could to provoke a fight with Nazi Germany. US destroyers were dropping depth charges on German U-Boats well before Dec 7, 1941.

JFK:
Con: Botched the Bay-of-Pigs invasion resulting in thousands of pro-USA Cubans to die. If your going to invade a country show some balls and go all the way or not at all.
Pro: He showed some balls in the Cuban missle crisis.
Pro: Tax Cuter

[Broken Glass Can]

Jefferson is getting too much credit here. Do you think most guys wouldn't have gotten Louisiana from a desperate to sell dictator (Napoleon)? The world situation created the opportunity, not the guy in office.

[bholdr]

in addition to that, it was the negotiators in france that made the purchase- before jefferson even knew it was for sale. all jefferson did was put his stamp on it after he got the news.

however, one of jefferson's most farsighted and brilliant moves was the forrmation of the Lewis and Clark expedition- securing two coasts for the US, and setting the stage for our eventual suerpower status.

[bholdr]

"Washington shines for this reason. The way he established precedents was masterful. Imagine that Washington had died in 1788, and we had to pick either Adams or Jefferson to be the first President. Neither could have done nearly as well, although for different reasons."

but would Stephen Douglas have held the nation together in the civil war?

"I do give Lincoln credit for his humility in running the Civil War. If he had pushed the Emancipation Proclamation too soon, he would have had riots in the North. He kept his eye on the ball, sticking with Grant was clearly good for the war effort."

i also give him credit for his foresight and military understanding. The war would've been won in 1862 had McClellan followed orders. Lincoln had masterful timing throughout the was. I also think that in the far future, it will be lincoln who will be remembered, not washington, not for the civil war, but for his thoughts, letters, and speeches. Lincoln was the most brilliant speechwriter in the modern era, and the ideas that he expounded in the first inagural, the cooper union address, the gettysburg address and the sublime second inagural have shaped the american cultural landscape as much as the civil was shaped it's political landscape.


and as far as FDR goes- he was in the right place at the right time, and kinda just went with the flow. he was, imo, far outclassed by Stalin and Curchill during the war (not in quality, but in ability).
...and there's that nasty little executive order 9063 on his record, too.

[giddyyup]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Reagan (won the cold war, cut taxes and govt revenue DOUBLED. Unfortunately the Democratic controlled congress spent the increased revenue and then some. Restored American pride after the fool Jimmy Carter tried his best to destroy the country both economically and thru an inept foreign policy.)


[/ QUOTE ]

there is more to be proud of! he negotiated with our enemy iran to keep american hositages captive until he was inaugurated, and then sold them weapons (in direct violation of the constituational grant of such power to the congress) while they were at war with our, then, ally iraq (how's that for "inept foreign policy"?); and used the money to fund the contras (again, in direct violation of the constituational grant of such power to the congress).

name me a democratic president who could do this and not be smeared a traitor by the gop?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
sold them weapons (in direct violation of the constituational grant of such power to the congress)

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I missed the weapons sale clause in the constitution. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

You liberals just make it up as you go along. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[giddyyup]

don't prey on all the lost souls who know not what the document says and how our goverment operates such that the more you can confuse them, the more it appears that what reagan was not a breach of constitutional powers.

this is basic constitutional law. its called division of powers. to congress goes the power to create a military and control over its hardware, to the president is the power to give the military orders. call your high school civic's teacher, s/he may be able to explain it to you.

[giddyyup]

also, lets not forget it was reagan who sold weapons of mass destruction to that crazy madman saddam hussein. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[giddyyup]

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan (won the cold war...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you do have some insight into reagan...

[ QUOTE ]
The world situation created the opportunity, not the guy in office.


[/ QUOTE ]

[bholdr]

...but regan was there to realize and capitalize on that oppurtunity. i doubt that mondale would've had the balls to do the same.

but i don't think reagan was all that great- his cabinet was... He was a good manager, but he didn't hit the home runs, IMHO.

[whiskeytown]

Abraham Lincoln -

saved the country....plain and simple - and also abolished slavery -

RB

[Felix_Nietsche]

All great presidents have two requirements:
1. Have a great vision.
2. Be a great manager to make the visions reality.

Reagan meets both these requirements. Clinton and Carter did not. Neither knew how to manage the whitehouse nor the Congress. Tip O'neil (Dem house leader) once said he became so frustrated w/ Carter that he wanted to smack him.

Bush43 meets the first requirement and we'll find out if he meets the 2nd requirement. I'm was not impressed with some of his choices for leadership positions (eg General Garner).

[Felix_Nietsche]

"he negotiated with our enemy iran to keep american hositages captive until he was inaugurated,"
****Sorry charlie, but you do not know your history. The Iranians released the hostages for three reasons. (1) To insult Carter, who they hated. (2)They realize they couldn't keep the hostages forever and they were concern about that "Cowboy Reagan". (3) Releases the hostages with a new president allowed them to save face for if Reagan got tough with them (say a naval blockade), Iran would be forced to cave...

"sold them weapons(Iran).....and used the money to fund the contras"
***Hey, no body is perfect /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"name me a democratic president who could do this and not be smeared a traitor by the gop?"
***It was the GOP who wanted to fund the Contras. Any Democratic president who supported that issue would have had full GOP support for the money. Now if the Dems sold weapons to North Korea to fund the Iraq insurgency....then I concede the GOP would bring up traitor charges. The current Dem leadership would probably do this if they thought they could regain power...

[bholdr]

Bush 43 has a great vision. unfourtunatly, it's dead wrong.

imo, of course.

...and i think it's a little more comlicated than you suggest, in terms of qualifications. Regan lacked the personal greatness that is, imo, also a requirment. a truly great prez must also...

transcend party lines (in thier own time)
be inteligent enough to contribute a doctrine or ethos to future generations- like lincoln and washington were
and, of course, they must change the world.

regan did, it remains to be seen wether bush43 will.

imo.

[$DEADSEXE$]

Putting Washhington number one is an utter joke...at the time the executive was not at all the way it is today..Saying he set the standard is sily. The executive became supremely powerful with Truman and basically pushed the congress-which legally has the most power- to the side.
George W took it to an even highly level but he just wa adavancing what TRuman started with.