Worst President?

[Gringo]

Who was it?

I have included some dems, not to damn them entirely, but they are dems who are percieved by many to be 'failed' or severely flawed presidents.

[Gringo]

1. Wow. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

And people say we're not unified...

[Character Assassin]

2. Why limit the choices to the (relatively) modern era?

[Gringo]

5. People are more familiar with the modern presidents and issues.

There is a choice for other, and I'd certainly be interested in reading pre-1900 submissions and reasons for the choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Ok to be fair we shuold include

some of teh dunces of the 19th century,

William Harrison for instance

But of the modern period it is close between Hoover and
Goergie boy.... and georgie does win out amazingly so

[NewJerseyDem]

15. William Harrison?

He was president for like a month. I don't think he did anything bad during that short period. Maybe he wasn't the best guy in general but his presidency was just sort of neutral. If he were one of the worst than that would mean that all presidents have been positive and have improved the country.

[Snow]

26. Polk - for the mexican war, very similar to bush war II

and with the intent in part of claiming Texas for the US so it could then be a slave state. On the other hand, Polk did provide an opportunity for Lincoln to give one of his better speeches, one that is amazingly relevant to bush's adventures as well. Frankly, this guy was almost as much a stinker, and for many of the same reasons, as bush.

[Ishoutandscream]

59. While I agree Polk was a jerk

Many historians give him high marks because he achieved basically all he wanted to during his administration. He also said he would serve one term, and he did. Good thing - he died three months after leaving the White House.

[jobycom]

70. Wonder if they'll do the same for Bush?

Polk was bloody and incalcitrant, like W. Like W, he got a reputation for getting things done. It's the "cowboys and indians" brand of historian who treats him well, in my opinion. They may yet wind up writing about Bush that way. "He was so beloved he was an action figure. He solved the mideast problem. He took no crap from no one." You know the routine. They'll make a movie about him one day, starring whatever action hero is popular then.

It's not hard to get things done when you don't care who you kill or steal from. But I don't see that as positive. Like Cicero said about the Romans: They make a desolation and call it peace. Perfect quote about Bush.

[jobycom]

71. Reagan-- he was more actively bad than Bush

Bush just sort of bumbles into situations and plans bloody ways out of them. He lets his administration run amuck because he has no understanding of leadership or the presidency, so he doesn't know how to handle them. He's evil because he will allow any evil to be done as long as it benefits his friends and gives him what he wants.

Reagan was more actively evil. He propped up the Soviet Union just so he would have an enemy to allow him to continue building arms-- which was the only economic "growth" during his administration. This meant the Soviets were never given a chance to transition to capitalism or a softer form of socialism-- they were forced to bleed themselves beyond recovery to prop up Reagan's image. He played both sides of the Iraq/Iran War, supplying weapons and funds to both sides so they could continue fighting well after the natural funding and resource limits were exhausted. He supplied terrorists in Central and South America with money and weapons so they could kill a hundred thousand or more people, and he did it against the will of Congress. (At least W forces Congress to go along with him.)

Reagan still reigns supreme for human suffering caused for wanton or no reasons. Just slightly better than Andrew Jackson, in my opinion.

And if you voted for Carter, you should be slapped.

On edit: I meant to put this under the main question, not here, where it makes no sense. Sorry.

[Ishoutandscream]

75. Agreed. Polk was bloodthirsty

and focused on manifest destiny. This land was meant for white folks after all (yes, sarcasm).

Truman put it pretty succinctly - Polk said what he was going to do, and did it. I think Bush is not quite accomplishing all he set out to do. But he's pretty damn close. But I don't think Bush will be ranked up there with Polk by historians, but rather near the bottom with such fine folks as Harding and Grant.

[Yupster]

31. He caught pneumonia during his inaugural address

and pretty much spent his one month dying.

Pretty tough graders on this site to make him the worst.

[diplomats]

4. Um, I don't think Truman is perceived as a flawed president

he regularly ranks in the top 10.

[Gringo]

7. Some of us have a MAJOR problem with Hiroshima

For us it is a stain that can never be removed from his name. I wouldn't characterize him as 'failed', but certainly 'flawed'.

[Upfront]

22. My Father Lived

because Truman dropped the bombs on Japan. My father was far from along. It is estimated that we would have lost a huge number of men had we went in on the ground. Truman did the right thing and most Americans with a brain Know that. Truman was a great man and President.

[Gringo]

29. My Uncle died at the hands of the Japanese

But one of his best friends was a Japanese he had known before the war. That man contacted my family in the US after the war to tell us what had happened to him. He statred a Japan-US pen-pal club to foster understanding between the countries, and named it after my uncle.

I eventually married a Japanese and lived there for many years. I have a different view of that horror than you, and it doesn't mean that I have no brain. I'd be willing to know that there is a HELL OF A LOT that you don't know about Hiroshima, and there's know way to say whether your Dad would have lived or not had things been done differently. I'm glad for you that he did, though.

Again - debate for another time and place.

[Upfront]

55. Very Sorrry You lost an Uncle

I was a little hard on you with the brain remark, I was pissed. Most Americans do have a brain, about half don't use them much. I have read that more Japanese people would have died in a ground battle then died because of the bombs, not to mention the American troops. This nation was dug in and willing to fight to the last man for the emperor. It is sad that Truman thought he had to do it and he did not want to. These people would not give it up, there was no other way. My father was lucky enough to surive two different landings, and was on a troop ship headed for Japan when the war ended. He often said he knew he would not live through another landing. I beleived him. Truman should not be on your list as a bad President. Sorry about my remark, it was uncalled for.

[Caution]

43. Hiroshima

I truly would like to believe that Truman didn't actually know what would happen when he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, but he knew what would happen at Nagasaki.

My grandfather also fought in the pacific theater. He believed the dropping of the bombs was wrong. My grandfather showed me pictures from nagasaki that were taken not long after the bombing occurred and he told me that he would much rather have fought his way to Japan than to have known what happened to the children in these cities.

Would many more soldiers have died? Probably, but while horrible, they were there to fight. The people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply going about their lives. This was one of the worst atrocities in modern history.

Here are some photos of what that "great" man brought about by that decision. Remember that these are civilians. When we refer to civilians we mean your mother, your sister, your brother, your baby cousin, your best friend, your dog, your cat.

http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/photo-1/Contents.html
http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/journey/journey1.html
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Japan/Hirosh.html

Here are some statistics and descriptions of the effects of these weapons.
http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html

Here are some stories as told by survivors of that day:
http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/

And remember, Bush is working towards creation of tactical nuclear weapons, these are battlefield weapons, rather than the strategic weapons in place now. Tactical weapons are those which are low yield and will actually be used in battle. This is another reason to get this bastard out of power.

[noonwitch]

62. Truman wanted to end the war

In retrospect, it looks horrendous and the toll it took on the civilian population was so high. I don't think it's fair for us to condemn Truman for the attacks almost 60 years later. It's a different world now. Truman wanted to end a war that all parties had already paid a high price for their involvement. Would a full scale invasion on Japan killed more or less? It would have killed more allied soldiers, that much we do know.

Because we now know what the price of using nuclear weapons is on the people, we need to work to ensure that no one ever uses them again. Bush is an idiot to even consider using nuclear weapons on anyone, when those countries or sympathetic terrorists will get hold of one and strike back.

[jobycom]

67. Historians are starting to question that.

There's a lot of evidence that we knew the Japanese were preparing to surrender. We were already in negotiations with them. They knew it was hopeless, but they wanted one condition. They wanted to keep their emperor. We told them no. So they refused to surrender. So we bombed Hiroshima. They repeated their terms, and again we refused, bombing Nagasaki. They still refused to surrender unless we let them keep their emperor. At that same time Russia was pushing towards Japan and planning to launch an invasion to take the island. We agreed to let them keep their emperor, and they surrendered.

The facts and chronology of that account are proven. Cause and effect is what is open to interpretation. Maybe we accepted the surrender with conditions because we were out of bombs, maybe because we were horrified by what we had done, maybe we were sorry for what we had done. Maybe we did it to keep Russia from taking Japan. But in any case, Japan had offered to surrender before we dropped the first bomb, and their conditions for surrender were met after we dropped the second bomb, so it's not clear that we gained anything by dropping the bombs.

It's so hard to judge on that one. The rules were different then, and it's unfair to judge using today's standards. Still, I think our story of the A-bombs is rather skewed towards our flag and our national mythology.

[LeahMira]

64. Many other fathers died.

I realize that those fathers mean less to you than your father, and that's natural, but the point needs to be made.

I wonder what the effect has been on this country of defending the bombings for these many years since. Whether one believes that it was right or wrong, what does it do to the collective American psyche (or whatever one chooses to call it) to have to defend killing so many people in such a way?

[wuushew]

6. Andrew Jackson

For inventing the concept of federally mandated indian genocide, his destruction of the first bank of the United States and his pioneering of the spoils system.

[Gringo]

11. Yes. Major-league SOB

but pretty effective, and popular in his time.

I think the same couls be said for Theo. Roosevelt.

[kiahzero]

44. Roosevelt did institute the National Parks program

And can you imagine how bad the world would have been if he hadn't?

*shudder*

As for your comment, I'm curious; my US History knowledge is lacking. To what are you referring to?

[Gringo]

48. Roosevelt was a big war lover

And a believer in "white man's burden" He said "No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war" Not a big idol to a peacenik like me.

[Snow]

54. Ja - mixed feelings, like Truman...

On the one hand, Teddy did usher in the Progressive Era (OK, so maybe that was actually McKinley), bust unions, etc. On the other hand, my wife is from Korea, and that country still remembers that it was Teddy giving the nod to the Japanese taking over Korea that really helped move the occupation along. Took till 1945 for that little business to come to an end....

[Exultant Democracy]

46. Yeah, hell has a special place for Andrew Jackson

every time I think about that guy my blood boils.

[LuCifer]

66. "The only GOOD Indian is a DEAD one"

Andrew Jackson, what a total and complete jerk. Well, this is one Indian half-bread (ok, I'm only 1/8th!) who says F. U. Andrew! Still not as big of a SOB as DUMBya, but certainly up there.

[jobycom]

68. You convinced me at point one

There were some positives to his administration, but his program of genocide ranks in the top tier of world atrocities.

[goddess40]

8. DUH

that was an easy one. I wish all of lives questions were that easy.
Although the right can't seem to get the answer correct.

[dbt]

9. Nixon wanted to send me to Viet Nam,

and I never thought I'd see a more evil bastige. SURPRISE! We didn't even have to elect this one.

:scared:
dbt

[oasis]

checkin' in.

[mistertrickster]

10. It's difficult to say . . . the Great Depression really sucked but

on the other hand, Hoover didn't send soldiers to suck sand for a personal vendetta . . .

Hmmm . . .

[Seneca]

42. google the "Bonus Army"

Then see if you might want to revise Hoover's use of the troops.

[VermontDem2004]

12. Take Truman off that list

Immediately, he should be on the 'Best' Presidents list.

[Gringo]

16. Is it inconcievable to you that he could be one of the worst

AND one of the best?

[VermontDem2004]

21. YES! One of the best

I do have a problem with Hiroshima but he was a champion of Civil Rights, he signed the anti-lynching bill, desegragated the military, signed a bill which made it illegal to hire or not hire based on race, and he unsuccessfully tried to get a 10 point Civil Rights Program (similar to the 1964 Civil Rights Act) through Congress. You need to really look at EVERYTHING Truman has done while he was President.

[JohnKleeb]

25. thats hard to understand for me what you mean

Me on Truman, pretty damned good president, I dont know if he was wrong or right for the atom bomb but he was a good democrat, his fair deal was terrific, the desegeration of the military, and I also really think he was a sincere friend of the people,
"It was an honor to meet your parents"
He said that to my relative Mary Strank whose brother Mike Strank died on Iwo Jima, he was a Marine and a flagraiser. I remember I post a thread memoral for Harry last December because it was 30 years since he departed this fine earth. RIP Harry S Truman. I also think LBJ was one of the best too although I feel for people when they say Vietnam, but the Great Society and the Civil Rights Acts were great.

[Gringo]

34. Depends on your personal criteria

Very effective leader, some progressive policies, but also (to some of us) a terrorist and war criminal.

Hey, the Japanese aren't even willing to call him that, so I wouldn't sweat it too much.

[Gringo]

20. You don't have to vote for him by the way...

I wouldn't in spite of the Hiroshima atrocity (a debate for another time & place - done to death)

Do you have an ignoble replacement for Truman in mind?

[lovedems]

13. It was a Super tough call between dumbya and Reagan

But, I had to go with awol. I hope he goes down in history as the guy who RUINED this country (and other countries), tore apart decades of alliances, and served his corporate backers at the expense of the middle class. That is just a very small list to cite examples.

[ewagner]

17. Same tough choice Bush II vs Reagan

Reagan really started this whole ultra-conservative movement mess...
but dubya has raised stupidity to an art form!

[joshdawg]

14. Gee, um, let's see, could it be...........Bush?

This was easy.

[nini]

18. Bush gets my vote for alienating us from the rest of the world.

the economy, deepened division between the parties etc.. are just added bonuses to his list of failures.

the way he has pissed on the rest of the world was so avoidable- it's completely unjustified.

[lovedems]

19. aside...who would have voted for Carter?

I think he got a bad rap from Reagan.

[Gringo]

24. I liked Carter as much as anyone, but

It would not be unfair to characterize his administration as a failure. He failed to inspire people, to lead effectively, and to respond properly after the Iran rescue heli's crashed. I know many loyal dems who were very pissed by that.

[Snow]

28. You guys do know about the October surprise, right?

wherein Reagan and friends nicely asked the Iranians to hold the captives until after inauguration so that Carter would lose.....

[WoodrowFan]

32. Except its been pretty well debunked

Sorry, Reagan's aides were scum, but the "evidence" isn't there.

[Gringo]

33. Most of us know, but

That's looked upon as "tinfoil hat" stuff by the mainstream. Besides, Reagan DIDN'T stop Carter for handling that episode better. Crash 2 helis, then sit on your hands? Big mistake.

[NewJerseyDem]

23. This is so stupid!!!!!!!

I don't see why everyone is voting for Bush. They would probably just vote for any republican that was currently president. They probably all thought Reagan was the worst during the 80's and I assume Nixon was the worst president when he was in power. So, every republican president becomes the worst president once they take office? That is ridiculous.

And I'm sure that most of the same people say that Clinton is the best president. Except those that think he is too moderate would then probably vote for FDR. It is just stupid to think that just because he is the most recent president that he is the worst or the best. Maybe some people should take some history classes.

You can't really tell how bad a presidency is anyway until some time has passed so I don't think anyone can compeletly judge Bush yet anyway.

[Gringo]

27. I'd like to give DUers some points for having perspective,

but anyway, opinions are like a**holes, and I wanted to see everybody's er, um - never mind.

[FlaGranny]

56. I personally remember

all those presidents except the first two - that was before I was born. Of all the presidents on that list Bush IS the worst. Even Nixon did some good things. Reagan is close, but Bush wins. Nixon doesn't hold a candle to Reagan or Bush, but I think the reason is that Nixon was his own man. Reagan and Bush were/are both "handled" by evil puppeteers. Every single day of the Bush administration there has been at least one outrage, some days two or more. There have been so many I can't keep track of them and I feel overwhelmed. Neither Nixon or Reagan managed so many outrages - more like a few a month - but daily? No. Bush deserves the title - worst president - at least in my memory he does.

[Zero Gravitas]

61. Disagree

I didn't like Bush I or Reagan, but I thought their administrations were at least reasonbly competent, if wrong on the issues. Neither Reagan or Bush I were nearly as divisive at home or abroad as * is now. Both actually legitimately won thier elections. And when Bush I was in the White House I for one did not think he was the Worst President Ever. I thought Reagan was worse, and I thought Noxon was worse than him.

Bush Jr. is, In My Oh So Humble Opinion, The Worst Persident Ever.

[Yupster]

30. I voted other

for James Buchanan who let the pre-Civil War crisis fester while he didn't do anything to stop it.

[CoffeePlease1947]

36. My thinking exactly!

Buchanan sat on his butt and did not nothing while state after state succeeded from the Union. The only thing he did was throw parties. Although, he was the first gay american president.

Mike

[knight_of_the_star]

35. You're asking this question here with GWB on there?

That's like asking a drunk if he likes beer.

[argyl]

37. This is just too easy

xx

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. I voted for Reagan

Because Junior is NOT the President.

He is, however, the single biggest steaming pile of shit to ever occupy the White House, legally or not.

[RichM]

39. I voted for Shrubby but Reagan deserves many more votes than he's

getting. Reagan made Shrubby possible. It never could have happened without him. In a sense, he's more to blame than ANYONE.

[TheDonkey]

40. Andrew Johnson & Jackson need on that list

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Bush only caused a recession and put a few million out of work...

Hoover and his pretecessors caused a depression and put half the country out of work.

[Zero Gravitas]

63. Its early days yet

[Uzybone]

76. and thats just on the domestic side

dont forget these wars we will be fighting for years to come.

[GOPBasher]

45. The current one is the worst, IMO, followed by Hoover, Harding and Reagan

[Yupster]

52. I'll defend Hoover

I think history judges him too harshly.

His anti-depression program went further than any president before him with government involvement in the economy. The fact that FDR's program went 10 X further does not mean that Hoover did nothing which is what Hoover's one sentence description usually says.

[GOPBasher]

77. That's true.

He did do a little. I guess I also dislike him because he was such an outspoken critic of the New Deal.

[maha]

47. Truman was one of the best.

Any "worst" list should include Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Don't forget Grant. (n/t)

[JackDragna]

50. U.S. Grant

Grant was a bumbling fool that let scads of corrupt people do some serious damage to the country. As bad as Bush is, Grant was worse. Read up on his presidency: you'll be shocked.

[FDRrocks]

51. Shouldn't MacArthur be on the list?

I heard that his was one of the most corrupt administrations every to be. I chose GWB, from the list.

[Yupster]

53. MacArthur so bad

His name's been scrubbed from the history books.

[Gringo]

57. So McArthur was president on Bizarro World?

That very interesting. Now me go kill Superman!

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. You're thinking of Grant.

MacArthur, like Grant, was a general. Unlike Grant, he was never elected President.

[Yupster]

78. I thought

maybe thinking Arthur?

[CBHagman]

58. The Chimp "wins," but I think Reagan was a disaster.

I can't get over the fact that when Reagan dies, people will be gushing about his supposed greatness. He played both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, set records for corruption in his administration that outdid the Harding record (!), was indifferent to the poor and oppressed, coddled Pinochet, had a disastrous Africa policy, served the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, and basically had no credible approach to the terrorism problem.

And he was a rotten father, I understand. Heck, I'll bet he even kicked dogs.

[Ishoutandscream]

60. Voted for Harding

He even admitted as much that he wasn't qualified to be president. And of course, his administration was rocked with scandals. I'm holding off on the Boy King for now, but I'm sure he will be ranked with the worst when all is said and done (unless he "wins" a second term).

[fob]

65. This is a poll where Carter deserves NO votes

raygun however....

[billyskank]

69. There are some real assholes there

but Bush 43 wins it by a mile. Worst president ever. Worst president you're ever going to have - shit, I really hope so anyway.

[Terran]

72. What five idiots think Carter is worse than all those repugs?

And especially worse than Bush 2? I'd really like to hear someone defend that position.

:grr:

[Gringo]

73. To Be Fair,

(and I wouldn't call Carter one of the "worst") A lot of people think that Carter did the party and the progressive movement a lot of damage. In spite of the fact that he governed as a moderate, even cut income taxes, he failed to counter the GOP's assertions that he was a 'tax-and-spend' liberal, and that lie has stuck to us ever since. Then there was the Iran helicopter fiasco.

I think he is a great man, but not a great president.

[On the Road]

79. I Think GWB Will Be Near the Top of the List

50 years or even 100 years from now. I cannot imagine his going down as a successful president. The response to Sep 11 will seem silly viewed in retrospect. He has accomplished nothing except huge tax cuts benefitting the rich and resulting in large defecits. Nothing. I can't think of anything that will be viewed as a success.

Carter can be faulted for his personality and attitude, but his platform and his decisions were generally of high caliber. He was president during very difficult economic and political times.