Pixiq

Where is the choice for “I am Independant/Third Party” yes or no?

As soon as I posted it, I knew somebody was going to raise that issue.

I just went into the coding and edited it.

I can’t believe it worked.

Actually, it didn’t work.

I had to redo the whole thing, so if you already voted, vote again because your previous vote was lost (as I said, these results tend to match actual results).

Now if you are libertarian or a member of the Green Party, just say you’re independent for now.

You’re the man.

Based on what has happened to previous Presidents, I’d say yes, Bush probably will be thought of more favorably 10 or 20 years from now than he is today. Future historians will have the advantage of perspective that we currently lack.

Well, in the future, we historians will have the advantage of, “looking back”. But history has also shown us that the majority of the presidents who were thought terribly badly of in their terms, usually turn out to be bad in perspective too.
What I think is that, unless the unlikely even of George Bush like taking a bullet for an orphan or something, that he will never be fully redeemed. Only forgotten. For example, who talks about Pres. Grant on a regular basis?

100 years from now, there is going to be so much history than what was documented than 100 years ago today.

As long as nobody kills the internet, historians are not going to have a lot of trouble in finding out how we lived and how dumb Bush was.

But it is true that in the hypocrisy that is our media and government, we tend to redeem even the bad presidents. Just look how Nixon had turned into a hero after his death.

I disagree about Nixon. I would hardly call him redeemed by current historians. Rather, he is more of a tragic figure whose neurotic, paranoid, morally flexible personality took him where he wanted to go.

Any foreign policy successes he may have had as president are a footnote once he became a criminal.

Truman was considered very unpopular at the end of his terms and decided not to run again. He was ripped on many of his decisions and he is now deemed the best Democratic President of the 20th Century.

John Adams was loathed when he did not win re-election and 50 years later they finally saw the greatness of the man.

Heck, JFK was a mediocre President and 45 years after his death, you would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to Presidents. In contrast, Johnson who was a great President except for Vietnam, gets no credit for the major pieces of legislation he got through Congress.

Only time will tell.

Cigar Mike,

I have no idea where any of your rating come from.
FDR is the best. Truman did a few good things, like de-segregating the military, but apart from a few things, he really wasn’t that good.

John Adams, if you recall, forced the Alien and Sedition Act, which made criticizing the government, and kept us in a quasi-war with France. Yes, what a great man.

Well I still think JFK was a mediocre president, but I will say that he didn’t have all the time that he should have.

Johnson was actually not that good of a president. Remember the Pentagon Papers? He lied to the public more than Nixon did. And of course Vietnam.

Just saying. Sorry, I have this debatable nature about me.

Scott, before you opine, perhaps you should study Presidential History; try reading McCollough’s bios on Adams and Truman. Truman did a few good things? Puhlease. He saved Europe with the Marshall Plan. He kept us out of WWIII by among other things, firing McCarthur, he was the first leader to recognize and push for the state of Israel. He saved hundred of thousands of Americans by having the guts to use the Atomic Bomb; Truman made the right decisions even though they were not the popular ones. That takes courage.

FDR may be the most popular, and while he did provide leadership during a critical time, he lied to the Americans to help the British prior to 1941. The public did not want to join the European conflict. In fact, but for Hitler’s blunder in declaring War on the US after our declaration of war on Japan, we would never have entered the European Conflict.

FDR also sent many Jews back to Germany so they could die in concentration camps and was inept in 1944 at Yalta where he pretty much handed all of Eastern Europe to Stalin.

John Adams kept the US out of a war with France which would have wrecked the country at that time through the use of diplomacy. He created the US Navy. He was an outstanding President.

Because of LBJ we got the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965…it would not have passed Congress but for his leadership.

I need to study my presidential history do I?
It might be helpful if you took a less narrow minded view of them.

First, Truman.
“He saved Europe with the Marshall Plan”
All he did was approve it, which anybody would have done. It was the brainchild of the State department, which is why it’s named after the Secretary of State. Marshall.

“He kept us out of WWIII by among other things, firing McCarthur”
Any sane person would have fired McCarther at that point. Ovbiously invading China would have been stupid, but the only reason that it was contemplated at all was of the Korean War. Who was our president during that I wonder.

There were other ways to end the war other than the bomb, or even invasion. A cease-fire and a demonstration of the bomb would have worked, but no, Truman had to drop, not one, but 2. Yes, what outrageous courage.

FDR lied to the American people? About what exactly? I’m not sure what your referring to.
And of course the Americans would have entered the war. If you payed attention in history class, you would know that Japan became allies with Germany and Italy months before Pearl Harbor, therefore forcing Germany and Italy into war with America once they declared war on Japan.

“was inept in 1944 at Yalta where he pretty much handed all of Eastern Europe to Stalin. ”
Wow kick a man when he’s down. You know he died a month and a half later right? oh and the Yalta conference was in 1945.

John Adams was IN a war war with France, undeclared or not. And an outstanding president that so obviously violates the first Amendment cannot be outstanding, I’m sorry.

OK, LBJ. I will admit that the man had good intentions. The civil rights acts were good, yes. But Vietnam was seriously bad. It was the reason why his Great Society failed. If he had been able to keep out of Vietnam, he would have been an outstanding president.

I’m not saying that FDR was perfect, but he did a good sight better than anybody else.

Scott I meant Tehran. You knew what I meant. I suggest you read Meacham’s Franklin and Winston. Now don’t get me wrong; he had to lie to the public about his covert help to the British. The American Public did not want a war in Europe.

And dude, chill out about History class; I actually learned more on my own by reading history than the crap they teach you in school. Hitler and Japan had a mutual defense treaty. That was Hitler’s mistake. Had he decided not to declare war, we would have had no basis to get in the European conflict. Why do you think we had to help britain covertly? The public was against the war back then. You even had a big peace and pacifist movement that tried to keep us out of the war. FDR did what was right by lying to the public. In this instance I agree with him.

But he was an anti-semite and sent many Jews to the ovens….that I will not forgive him ….

As to Adams, you need to read Revolutionary Charachters by Gordon Woods as well as the Adams Bio by McCullough. You seem to think that the Alien and Sedition act is the only thing he did. it was a bad law and unconstitutional, but you’re looking it with modern day hind site. There was no body of first amendment jurisprudence back then compared to what we have today. For what it’s worth, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and jailed folks who were against the war for sedition without trials. So are you going to say that Lincoln was a piece of shit President?

But with FDR, he was a cunning Prez, and pissed Churchill off. Had he agreed with Churchill to go against Stalin, then imagine the lives that could have been saved by not having 50 years of an iron curtain.

I also suggest you read LBJ’s bio by Kearns Goodman. Vietnam was his downfall, no doubt; but he passed some serious legislation to advance civil rights which I think outweighs his blunder in Vietnam.

Actually I’m really not sure what you mean he lied about in Tehran. I am assuming your talking about the Tehran conference, but what your specific point might be is eluding me.

I learned more about history by reading too. But as I intend to teach it after I finish college, it being done right is important to me.

“Why do you think we had to help Britain covertly”
How did we help them covertly? I remember cash and carry. I remember Lend-Lease. As far as I can recall, both of those were public.

“But he was an anti-semite and sent many Jews to the ovens….that I will not forgive him ….”

I don’t see what would make him an anti-semite. He has several close friends and even appointed some cabinet posts to Jews.
I don’t agree with turning away the refugee’s. I don’t agree with Japanese Internment. But the large majority of the things he did were good, especially considering how long he was president.

I never said the Alien and Sedition Act was the only thing he did. All I said was that it basically puts a big black spot on his record. I find him a good mediocre president. I certainly wouldn’t call him a sack of shit.
I know Lincoln had revoked habeous corpus. Thats one of the reasons he’s not my favorite.

“But with FDR, he was a cunning Prez, and pissed Churchill off. Had he agreed with Churchill to go against Stalin, then imagine the lives that could have been saved by not having 50 years of an iron curtain.”
It seems that your automatically assuming that we would have won.

“Vietnam was his downfall, no doubt; but he passed some serious legislation to advance civil rights which I think outweighs his blunder in Vietnam.”
I actually think he would have made a great domestic president if there hadn’t been a war. The Great Society might have actually worked.

I think I’ll check out Franklin and Winston. That looks like a good read.