Good cases to be made for all of them... and I was tempted to vote "Dumbya" based solely on the war in Iraq but I took a different route. For me it was a neck and neck race between elder Bush and Carter. I think Carter was weak as a president but strong in character. He seemed to play his ethics straightforward which gives me great respect for citizen Carter but made it possible for Iran (for example) to play him like a stratovarius. The one issue crippled his presidency which had already sustained damage from the Watergate scandal. It seems to me that he might have been able to accomplish a bit economically if he forged a working coalition with the GOP- but he was less than willing to compromise his principles and the lack of flexibility cost him... giving him little to work with beyond the Iran hostage crisis- which bedeviled him making Reagan's presidency possible. I give Carter credit for leading by example. Elder Bush squandered a chance to exploit almost unprecedented popularity after Desert Storm with seeming complete obliviousness to economic difficulties with the middle class. He declared the economy to be going along swimmingly and didn't even acknowledge weak employment numbers until the Democrats and Clinton forced him to confront it "It's the economy, stupid". Despite the fact that the '92 presidential run was beset with scandal (Gart Hart & Donna Rice, then rumors of Clinton's womanizing and shady real estate dealings) George H W Bush lost to Clinton in '92. Clearly the first Bush didn't have a clue what the working class was about. While Reagan laid waste to the U.S. economy with deficit spending he seemed to give us some credibility with the rest of the world, most notably by forging a close friendship with British P.M. Thatcher. He also had as charismatic manner as anyone; his leadership and oration skills gave him a natural leader personna rivaling that of one of the greatest presidents- FDR. I'm not quite old enough to remember JFK (I was six months old when he got shot) but history seems to treat his tenure with kid gloves considering how his presidency ended. From what I've seen via historical data he had great charisma but tremendous character flaws and not the most strong of world leaders (although Khrushchev did blink first during the Cuban Missile Crisis). LBJ followed on his coattails and benefitted greatly from his legacy. Johnson's war on poverty (the Great Society) reflected high ideals even if it was a tad exploitive and his championing civil rights (like JFK) reflects well on him but he killed his chances for a great presidency with the huge error of expanding our role in Vietnam. He gets credit for recognizing the fact by refusing to run in '68 Nixon ruined the office but accomplished a great deal- establishing relations with china and getting us out of Vietnam, albeit under alot of pressure and after rather aggressive prosecution of the action through his entire first term. For my purposes it is the elder Bush who wins this dubious contest as he seemed to lack leadership skills and integrity... but wasn't devious enough to take advantage of a fairly fractious opposing party when he ran for re-election. Hell, Ross Perot seemed almost a better choice.
Abe. His extreme taxing on the south to bring money to the north was the main reason for the civil war, then led a war to get his cash cow back. He also got on the anti slavery thing to gain popularity for getting the cash cow back. FDR's programs actually prolonged the depression, i put him #2. I vote Jefferson the best, he is the greatest libertarian mind in our history imo.
bush jr. without a doubt, closely followed by nixon. all clinton did was fuck and lie about it..so what? bush fucked a nation and continues to with his constant attack on our civil liberties!
Check your history. They, the clinton n clinton circus, did a lot more damage than what most on this site will acknowledge. They also took credit for a number of good things that would've happened otherwise. Oh in case yall forgot, I believe 98+% of all politicians are crooks/ essentially the same regardless of what they call themselves (party affiliation). They're even lower on the food chain than nongovernmental lawyers...
john adams had the alien and sedition acts... the first presidents WERE slaveholders.... I put W. Bush for most of the reasons already stated... reagan and nixon close behind though. And I think Clinton was pretty good. Who cares if he got a bj in the oval office?
I'll never forgive Clinton for not pursuing his idea of National Health Insurance and just letting the Republicans tear the idea to pieces. He really handled that whole issue very poorly. Now, instead of having universal health coverage, we've got more people that are uninsured than ever. Clinton was actually extremely intelligent, but when it came to practical matters such as skilfully dealing with Congress, and keeping his dick in his pants, he left a lot to be desired.
bush is by far not the best but he isnt the worst, im 24 and most people here are under 50 so they have only lived under a few presidents. a president's legacy is not fully seen until yrs after they leave office. That is what has damaged clinton so bad, he didnt do anything and it is catching up with him. abe is still my choice for the worst for the same reasons and more i dont like bush. He went to war on his own people to funnel their money up to his northeastern socialist programs, hence the "war of northern aggression". i doubt most of you could even name all the presidents without help from the internet.
Taft (i think it was Taft) delayed too long to attempt government intervention during the depression. Worst overall im not sure.
I said Dubya but Nixon and Reagan(though for some reason you just can't hate the guy) were pretty bad too. Lincoln, bad? He did his best in hard times even if he had to impose harsh rules in certain areas.
There's too many youngsters who only remember Bush as the U.S. Pres, any of you people remember Reagan running the States? I sure don't but all I have to do is SOME READING to understand he was by far the worst, Bush is just an idiot, he's not that bad by U.S. terms, Clinton was Golden, he was the 2nd JFK.
the general sentiment I have seen from some of you (and some outside this forum) is almost as if you believe that if a younger person says bush, it's not correct because they are just to young. but if a 60 year old says the same (as I have heard many times) it is fine based on increased experience (as if ignorance disappears with age and wisdom correlates with age) just because you are a youngster does not mean you can't look at resources and do your research and talk to experienced (older) folks, ect. yet thats almost the tone some of you seem to take. of course you get to a point where everyone is a youngster...not many people are around when James Monroe was president for example..so what...all we can do is research because in this countries span (220 years) eventually everyone is a youngster in comparisson and many presidents are simply part of the past. still. bush. period. don't assume we youngsters don't do research either. eventually we all have to anyways. But Bush as the worst has been a common sentiment here and I am not suprised. and thats not to say their are other bad presidents, just that bush is at the top of that list..and suprised no one really understood that earlier clinton comment I made was kind of sarcastic and satire of typical sentiment from people. oh well.
I just realized that all these people are republicans. I have to name a democrat that was pretty bad I'll say...Woodrow Wilson.