Who do you think was the *worst* Democratic president in the last century?

Had a discussion with a coworker and this came up... Without really thinking about it, I rattled off "LBJ". Specifically, I am asking about who was the worst Democratic president we've had in the past century based upon what he did (or didn't do) while in office. Who do you guys think?

and imperfect as he was, I'd take him back in a heartbeat over the moron that represents America every time he fumbles over his own tongue now

In the last decade there has only been one Democratic president.

Sorry about that! I put "decade" in the original question instead of "century". Fixed.

He came just short of admitting he couldn't "fix" Vietnam, started the "war on drugs", and the equally unsuccessful "war on poverty".

He might have been good, but Vietnam crushed him.

But Vietnam could have sunk almost anyone.


Except for bastard Nixon, he screwed himself up.

aside from Vietnam...he greatly expanding social programs and was a great deal maker

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Medicare Amendment to the Social Security Act (1965)
Medicaid
Head Start (1965) Office of Economic Opportunity
Executive Order 11246 (1965) marks the beginnings of "affirmative action"

Appointed Abe Fortas (1965) and Thurgood Marshall (1967) to the Supreme Court.

In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency in his own right with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes, beating wing-nut Barry Goldwater.


To name a few ...

Of course, LBJs Presidency is defined by Vietnam.

But I'm going to go with Woodrow Wilson.

I get the whole League of Nations thing but I'm not sure his blatant racism should be easily forgiven (particularly in a Democratic President.)

LBJ's Vietnam war escalation makes him a VERY close 2nd in my book.

Wilson was a Democrat at a time when the Democratic Party logo in much of the country was a cock crowing the words "White Supremacy." I doubt you'd be any less racist if you grew up in Civil War/Reconstruction Georgia and South Carolina. Unlike many of his comtemporaries however, he thought the Klan were thugs (the quote about Birth of a Nation is likely a myth), opposed lynching, and even opposed colonialism saying that every peoples in the world could be educated to be self-governing. For that reason he also supported self-government for the Philippines (full independence was impossible to get through Congress), and set up the League of Nations mandate system so that instead of colonies, the powerful states would have to answer to the League for how they treated their 'mandate' states.

Wilson gets a bum rap by modern Democrats because of his racism. It's a huge black mark (as is his failure to control his Postmaster General and Attorney General during WWI and the Red Scare) but his record on worker's rights and economic issues was the most progressive in US History until FDR, and FDR, like Truman after him), sought to finish what reforms Wilson started.

You can only dismiss Wilson's racism and LBJ's accomplishments if you cannot empathize with the people affected by their policies. Wilson was not just a reflection of his time -- he was excessively and enthusiastically racist. Even before entering politics he wrote loathsome historical articles about how slavery was good for Negroes and how the abolitionists were evil zealots. Despite the southern Democratic party's racism, the northern Democrats were already well on their way to creating an interracial coalition that would become official party doctrine between the New Deal and the 1960s. This was especially true in New York (sister state to Wilson's New Jersey), where a coalition of mostly but not entirely Democratic Irish, Jewish, Italian and African American politicians were experimenting with what would become the New Deal. Wilson was WAY behind his time, not a reflection of it. His context would have been New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, not Alabama. He bears full moral responsibility for choosing to go against his context to be a virulent racial supremacist.

LBJ gets a bad rap for Vietnam, but he did not start the war. By contrast, as the master legislator relocated into the White House, he rammed through the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and other legislation dismantling segregation that was as important to the political development of our principles of freedom and equality as the Constitution -- the post Civil War amendments -- itself. LBJ also viscerally felt the need to bring racial justice to the country, especially to his native South.

This is just one of those questions that you see differently depending on your own position. If you are white, you can dismiss Wilson's racism as a minor blemish and undervalue LJB's breaking the back of 100 years of Jim Crow and southern racial terrorism. If you are black and experienced the south of the 1950s and 1960s, there is no comparison between the two figures -- LBJ was second to none.

that his racism was a "huge black mark" on his record, but compared to other Southern politicans of his era, he was actually moderate. But then, at the time even mainstream southern Democrats accepted lynching as at WORST, a necessary evil, and even a positive thing. You have to put it into context. I can't blame a man born in 1856 for not having the racial sensitivity of a man born in 1956.

His book on the Civil War was actually regarded at the time as being to least regionally biased written to date, and he was happy that the South lost and Slavery ended. He accepted Jim Crow, so did many northern progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt. His political thought also progressed as he got older. His writing and actions of the 1910s were far more progressive than the things he wrote and said in the 1880s and 1890s. We all (hopefully) grow. He did too.

As for LBJ, I never denigrated his domestic record, I think it's the single best thing about his administration and I admire his courage in pressing it as he did.

You may have said it was a black mark -- but you also said it was a bum rap. Which was it? It wasn't a bum rap, it is entirely on point.

Not everyone (you mean to limit your context to white people I assume) was racist in 1856, 1910 or 1956 -- north or south. You are making excuses for the inexcusable. Also Wilson was not a "southern Democrat." He was born in Virginia, but his career was in New Jersey, where there were plenty of examples of progressive thinking on race. His book on the Civil War was regarded as less biased, because the field was still dominated by frankly racist southern apologists, but by any standards, it is just as racist -- just less pro southern.

Face it, modern historian generally agree that Wilson was the number one most racist president of the twentieth century. That's quite an accomplishment. As conservative as say Teddy Roosevelt or other Wilson contemporaries were on race, there was absolutely no comparison.

I get historical context, do you? I said it's a black mark, a big one, but it's still overblown by some on this board who expect a man born in 1856 Virginia to be a Progressive 1990s Democrat on race. Yes, he was a very racist man BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. I would disagree that he was the most racist of the 20th century, I think Nixon edges him out there). He wasn't even that much worse that Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt had Booker Washington to the White House to dinner, ONCE, but never repeated it after the politicla protest, and in 1912 Roosevelt abandoned black voters in order to try and get votes in the South. that's called pandering, and Teddy did it as well as anyone.

As for being a Southerner, Wilson was born in Virginia, spent his childhood in Augusta Georgia, spent his teens years in Columbia South Carolina with a couple years in Wilmington North Carolina. He went to law school at UVA, then practiced law for a couple years in Atlanta and did grad school at Johns Hopkins in Maryland. He spent his ADULT years in New Jersey but he was most certainbly a southerner.

Duh! :D

in both word and deed.

I agree with you WoodrowFan. For Christ's sake, we could probably find quotes from Lincoln that could be construed as racist.

Wilson may well have been a racist, I don't really know if he was or not, but I do know that he was an idealistic man who tried very hard to believe in the good side of humanity.

Al Smith, governor of New York, with whom Wilson would have been very familiar.

http://www.houstonreview.com/summer2002/democrats.html

"Democrat participation in the wrongs of racism did not cease in 1866 with the abolition of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment. Many of the Democratic Party’s institutions participated in blatant acts of discrimination well into the 20th century. The discriminatory practice of segregation emerged at both official party functions and in the laws enacted with the Democratic Party’s backing. Bigotry reared its ugly head throughout the Democratic National Convention of 1924 in New York, often called the "Klanbake" convention. Shortly after the convention opened a majority of the Democratic delegates and voted against a platform plank condemning the Ku Klux Klan. The vote incited one of the longest convention fights in American history. The pro-Klan delegates, who held a majority at the convention refused to support New York Governor Al Smith for the presidential nomination because Smith favored an anti-Klan plank. Though they had a majority thereby blocking Smith, two thirds of the delegates were needed to nominate a candidate. Unable to reach this mark, the pro-Klan majority attempted to bolster their side by holding a 20,000 person KKK rally across the river from the convention on July 4, 1924. The event was dominated by racist speeches, effigies of Smith, and concluded with a cross burning. Shortly afterwards both Smith and William McAdoo, the candidate favored by the pro-Klan delegates, withdrew from the nomination and the convention chose John Davis, who had not been involved in the controversy."

lost a lot of southern support because he was Catholic. I think another would be Eugene Debs, I know what he advocated for wasnt racist, I havent read his personal writtings but the Woobies were a pretty diverse group if I recall.

His reaction on seeing D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" (cinematic glorification of the KKK and demonisation of evil darkies): "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." (This quote was used in the film's advertising campaign, btw.)

Actually, that's a historical myth. Wilson saw the film, but was never told what it was about (a childhood friend wrote the book it was based on.) He sat silently through the entire film and left without saying a word. The film's producers probably made up the quote as they did one from a Supreme Court Justice who was also quoted as praising the film. BTW, I've held Wilson' program from that screening and it's been wadded up into a ball. He never treated any other of his movie or theater programs like that. Wilson had no sympathy for the "Lost Cause" myth and thought it's proponent idiots.


BTW, He WAS a racist, but his "praise" for the movie The Birth of a Nation is not historically reliable.

My feelings on him are mixed, Wilson that is, I feel that his league of nations inspired FDR to do the UN ( a good thing) but his imprisonment at least I think of anti war people in WWI was wrong. I havent read on him much.

He appointed Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court) and a radical economic reformer of the period. He was also Wilson's main economic advisore. He also appointed Joe Tulmulty, an Irish Catholic, as his Secretary (i.e. Chief if Staff) at a time of rampant anti-Catholic feeling.

I had no idea about Tulmulty, and yes there was a strong anti Catholic feeling, my family lived it.

You should see the "kook" mail Wilson got, it's in his papers in the Library of Congress. He was warned about every conspiracy under the sun, mason,s the Pope, Jews, the Illumanatie, etc. Tulmulty would gather the nuttest of them up of give them to Wilson to read for grins. (Some of the MIHOP crowd here probably shouldn't read them, they might believe them!)

In 1912 the republicans spread lots of rumors about Wilson, including that he 1) hated Catholics and 2) was a member of the Knights of Columbus. :eyes: How can you do both of those at once?

All said and done, I think I would have supported Debs back then. Though he didnt authorize it, Hoover and Nixon's campaigners used anti catholicism against Al Smith and JFK. Its sick, which is why I get upset when people go after Catholicism, I also happen to be Catholic myself.

and Wilson didn't deny the veracity of the quote's attribution until there were protests. Which rather indicates that he probably did, in fact, say it (or something similar); he only denied it when it became politic to do so.

Wilson refused to give endorsements to any commercial product and he did not want to embarass a childhood friend by denying he said it. The evidence that he did not say it was gathered by historians who interviewed friends and family and Wilson's papers years later.

He should rot in hell for that one!

Wilson (as I understand it) failed to get 13 of his 14 points passed in Versailles, and then couldn't get Congress to agree to the League of Nations. This was partly due to his shortcomings as a negotiator. And while we did 'win' (as it were) World War One under his leadership, I'm reluctant to write that up as a success of Wilson's because as far as I know he didn't really provide great military leadership.

Wilson wasn't the worst Democratic president (I'd say LBJ, for Vietnam) but I would rank Clinton, Truman, FDR, and probably Kennedy all above him.

Sorry, he did better than that at the Conference, especially as he was outnumber 3-1 in the discussions on many points. Here are the 14 points and what happened to then at the treaty talks. A few I need to do more research on.

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
This meant open treaties, rather than secret ones. The treaties the US agreed to at Versailles were all open. so he got this one.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
Will have to check League Covenant to see if this was included.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
Will have to check League Covenant to see if this was included.


IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
Will have to check League Covenant to see if this was included. Certainly arms reduction talks did occur after WWI with the Washington naval Confernece being among them. Germany was also forced to disarm, which they immediately cheated on, with Holland's help.


V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
This was the basis of the League's Mandate system, a step up from colonialism, but Wilson hoped the League would be more effective at enforcing it.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
A clear failure, since no one could agree who to negotiate with in Russia and the Civil War was raging. Wilson made the mistake of allowing US troops into Russia along with the other Allies to help the White Russians.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.
Done.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
Done.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
Done, though the Italians were pissed they didn't get more, non-italian territory.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.
Done, witness Czechoslovakia and Poland.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
Done, with the creation of Yugoslavia.

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
Done, but mostly because the Turks kicked out the Greek Army.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

Done

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

Done.

LBJ comes in a distant second because of Vietnam. A tragic Presidency!

You may understand Asscroft, but it's clear you have no knowledge of Wilson. I'm not even going to bother with this one it's so far afield.

Wilson was also anti-labor, using force to back the industrialists against the workers. The man was a crypto-nazi!

Be glad you're not one of my students unless you like an "F" for essaies written with no actual facts. Wilson was very PRO labor (see 8 hour day and workman's comp) and he didn't lie the US into WWI. That bit of propaganda was debunked back in the 1930s. Is ALL your historial knowledge that non-existent? Anybody who thinks Wilson was in any way shape or form a Nazi has either no sense of historical fact or no sense of proportion, or, perhaps, has neither. At any rate you're clearly too far gone to argue with.

I'd vote LBJ, but even he had more accomplishments than most of the Republicans since 1900.

No question. Wilson was a tremendously bigoted racist who brought Jim Crow to the Federal government, and a fool who involved the US in WWI and, with the Versailles treaty, set the stage for WWII (and the Allies would have won without us).

And LBJ is FAR from the worst...Vietnam was a terrible mistake, but his domestic accomplishments make him the greatest Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt (Civil Rights Act, Great Society, etc).

We got in WWII because the Germans declared war on us. However I agree with Wilson as your choice.

we had no choice in WWII, but there wouldn't have BEEN a Second World War without Versailles...the economic punishments and territorial losses inflicted on Germany set the stage for Hitler.

dont forget what was done to Gene Debs.

Versailles was fairly MILD compared to what would have happened to the Germans if the US had not been in the peace talks. The reperations were constantly revised downwards and the Rheinland was allowed to rejoin Germany aver a plebisite. The German right wing in the 1920s and 30s used WWI the same as the RW now uses Vietnam "we could have won but the left (or jews) screwed us over and stabbed us in the back." They simply refused to admit that it was an unjust war and that they LOST.



May I suggest a book, "Europe's Last Summer" It's the best book on the outbreak of World War I and Germany's responsibility, follwoed by Paris 1919 about the Peace Talks.

Churchill made the comment had the US STAYED OUT OF WWI, both sides would have negotiated a settlement sometime in the summer of 1917. France's army was on strike (It would defend but would no longer attack. This is the "French Army Mutiny of 1917" that is still not talked about in France and parts of which is still classified do to the extent of the "disorder"). The German Navy had mutinied do to bad food (and the rest of Germany was starving). Britain was bankrupt and the Irish situation was heating up (Caused by the German Supply Guns to the Irish rebels). The German U-Boats were causing shortage of food even in Britain and the labor shortage caused by the War was leading to rapid inflation and strikes were increasing.

On top of all of the above, the Communists in every country had opposed the war and expanding membership as more and more people opposed the war in EVERY COUNTRY. Thus by 1917 the political situation would have been right for all of the European Countries to agree to a compromised settlement.

The big loser in such a compromise would have been the British and American Banks, both had loaned extensively to the allies on the promise that Germany would pay the banks back. In a compromise settlement the Banks would have to wait 10-20 years for their money instead of the 2-3 years promised to them by England and France when England and France borrowed the money (Germany was to pay the banks, so a more rapid repayment was promised upon Victory).

Thus in the spring of 1917 pressure was put on Wilson to enter the US into the War. With the US in the Allies had the extra troops to stop the upcoming German Offensive of 1918 and with the defeat of that offensive the Western Allies would have won the war (and did).

In the Summer of 1917 France and England WITHOUT THE US IN THE WAR would have been facing the full scale of the German Army in Spring 1918, with a good chance of the German Army winning.

On the other hand the Germans were looking at one throw of the dice, win or lose in the Spring 1918. If they won, they win everything, if their lose they lose everything (just as what happen in Spring 1918).

Thus Churchill believed that had the US stayed out of WWI both sides would have compromise to a peace settlement by the Summer of 1917. Germany for the Spring Offensive was such a Gamble, for the Allies, defeat so possible in the Spring 1918 (With possible Communists revolts in Every Country upon defeat or victory as what was happening in Russia in 1917).

Churchill said, Nazism, Communism, and the rest of the "isms" would never had occurred if WWI had been settle in a compromise as opposed to a "Victory". In the summer of 1917 the only way the allies could "win" was if the US entered the War. Thus had Wilson NOT entered the US into the War, Churchill believed a peace settlement would have been agreed to by the Summer of 1917. All of the Countries needed peace and in 1917 and the revolution in Russia (the Communist Revolution would not occur till the fall, but you already had the Spring Revolution overthrowing the Czar) would have made the price for peace in every country less than the price to continue fighting. An uneasy peace, but peace that would have lasted more than the 21 years between November 11, 1918 and September 1, 1939.

Sorry for the mistake, the comment was made in the 1937-1938 time frame.

Most historians agree Germany would have won in 1918 had the US not entered the war. Their offensive in 1918 came very close to doing just that, especially with French troops commiting mutiny in 1917.

But Churchill's statement was based on the fact both sides HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING in Switzerland since 1915 to end the war. While Germany was willing to gamble (It even Shipped Lenin to Russia to cause revolution hoping to knock Russia out of the war by Spring 1918) would Germany turn down a sure thing (i.e. everyone returns to pre-August 1914 lines in the West, Poland independent but under German Control, with Belgium "Neutral" with German forces being permitted in certain key locations. Would the Kaiser refused such an offer? I do not think so. Austria had already indicated it was willing to back down from its position as to Serbia so even Austria would have agreed. Turkey was breaking up, the turks indicated they no longer wanted anything but modern Turkey so Britain and France would have grabbed the Mid-East. Turkey was so desperate it might even have agreed to turn Constantinople over to the Greeks to keep the Russians happy. Hard decisions would have had to be made by everyone involved, but hard times brings with them the willingness to make hard decisions.

I think the Germans would have won WWI without us, and probably within 1918.

The war was a draw until 1917.

Then Germany knocked Russia out of the war with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This freed millions of Central Power soldiers for duty on other fronts.

The first place this new manpower was felt was in Italy where the Germans struck at Caporetto and knocked Italy reeling and almost out of the war. Again this freed many German soldiers for other fronts.

The final Ludendorff offensives hit France and made good progress, and I think would have been decisive if American reinforcements weren't available to check it. The Germans quickly asked for an armistice since they knew more American troops would be pouring into the front every day while the Germans, as well as the French and Britsh were at the end of their resources.

I think without those American troops coming "over there," on their way and hoped for, it would have been the Allies asking for the armistice.

Just my analysis anyway. Always enjoy the history what ifs.

contributions.

he was phenominal on that, terrific domestically, very overlooked IMO for his Vietnam policy, its a shame, I may feel differently about him if I was alive back then, my opinion on him is a great man flawed by a horrible war.

You find some interesting parallels. For example, civil rights abuses (because of the rise of communism and WWI) during his administration led to the founding of the ACLU. Americans were imprisoned then (with no recourse) who were deemed a threat and some weren't released until the '30's.
Read the book "Presidential Ambition" by Richard Shenkman. It has a succinct version of these abuses.

With the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive.

Since technically he did later on. I think it's an insult to the guy to label him as a Republican.

I honestly hadn't even thought of Wilson, but if what everyone's saying about him is true...

Along the lines of my original question, I had already seen a *poll* about the best Dem president in recent history and it seemed that FDR won that hands-down (with Clinton running second when I saw).

Aside from Bush43, who was the *worst* repug president in the last century? Who was the (gulp) *best* repug president in the last century?

Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Harding was an incompetent, Coolidge was a nonentity, and Hoover was a good man but a terrible President. Their combined Presidencies led to the Great Depression, through a combination of, first, unchecked laissez-faire economic policy (Harding and Coolidge) and then ill-timed protectionism (Hoover).

As to the best, it's a toss-up between Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

The question was about Democratic presidents (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton).

Then you'd understand.

Elected after a two-term, popular Democrat (who followed a highly popular 2-term Republican and an unpopular one-termer), he was kept out of the spotlight because of his lack of intellect. Harding projected a homey, folksy, conservative image. He brought in his Ohio friends into his Administration, and then they ran around breaking lots of laws and rolling back the rest. Sound like anyone we know?

Hoover was the worst because he sat idly by for a long time while the depression worsened.

Best?

TR, then Eisenhower. Then, strangely enough, Nixon, though he is a distant third.

alas, a lot of what is said about Wilson here is historical myth, sort of the stuff you see on the History Channel or read in an old history text books, much of it has been debunked for decades.

I confess I am partial. I like Wilson. I am disgusted with his racism but when I read what else was written and done in the period it pales in comparison. His Civil Rights record was tainted by his Postmaster General and his Attorney General. I think you have to lay the blame for Wilson's refusal to stop them in part to his hands off policy towards his cabinet memebers, who, aside for the State Department, were allowed to run their own affairs, and after September 1919 to his stroke, which made his thinking very inflexable.

But I've spent years reading about Wilson, and reading his works,(I've read everyone of his books, articles and speeches) and there is a LOT to admire about his progressive attitudes towards workers and immigrants and his refusal to trust the "trusts." His attitude towards labor put him to the left of FDR. The Democratic Party int he 1910's, however, still relied on "States Rights" to the point that it hindered his effectiveness. That's why FDR rejected "States Rights" to the extent he did and why he supported Federal action. As a member of Wilson's administration he saw what had hampered Wilson effectiveness as a reform President.

worst: Reagan
best: Teddy Roosevelt

Best? Theodore Roosevelt, hands down. 'Course now days I doubt he'd be considered a republican. Big environmental conservationist, strengthened commerce laws, monopoly busting, pure food and drug act, meat inspection act... he'd probably consider today's neocons an utter disgrace.

He dragged his feet on civil rights, he esclated our involvement in Vietnam, he could have stopped the Bay of Pigs (but didn't)

JFK wasn't much of a liberal, actually.

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't buy into the Camelot mystique.

from vietnam when he was killed. check your facts.

JFK was as big a cold warrior as Nixon? Withdraw from Vietnam? only in Oliver Stone's wet dreams.

I read an interview in the Times for my American Foreign Policy class, I can't remember who the man was, I think he may have been national security advisor or something along those lines, but he was pretty convinced that kennedy was pulling out. He claimed that 5000 were on their way home when he was killed.

there's a lot more written on it than just a newspaper article in the Times.

Kennedy had ordered a withdraw of our advisors in November 1963, but it was the type of withdraw we had done for several years in Vietnam (i.e. withdrew them in November and sent them back in March).

The raining season was coming and most of our tactical advantages disappeared with the raining season so we tend to send our advisors home and sent them back when the raining season ended and we could use our helicopters again.

Thus Kennedy's order to withdraw troops was NEVER intended to be permanent. This can be show by Kennedy's agreement to assassinate Diem. With Diem's death the last opposition in South Vietnam (except for the Communists) to Full scale American Invention was silenced. Thus when Kennedy agreed to Diem's death, that was part of a long term plan to send in US Troops. It is the only explanation for the Assassination of Diem. If Kennedy did NOT want to send in US Troops why kill off the only CIVILIAN leader of South Vietnam that had any real status as representing the people of Vietnam (The rest of the Government of South Vietnam represented those people most closely allied with the former French Colonial Government than the People of South Vietnam).

Please note I use the term "Government of South Vietnam" for the majority of the people of South Vietnam supported the Communists, I only mention Diem for as a CIVILIAN he had some support from some of the People of South Vietnam as compared to the almost lack of support for the remaining Government of South Vietnam.

He authorized the coup only because he viewed Diem as an impediment to the US goal of stemming the spread of Communism (he was unpopular with his own people - especially the Buddhists). Also, in 1963, our meddling in Vietnam was not yet unpopular at home.

Keep in mind, Kennedy was pragmatic. No way, given his record and style, would he have gotten entwined in Vietnam like LBJ eventually did.

After the '64 election, he would have "found" a way to get out just like LBJ "found" a way to dive in head first.

American withdrawal would have been tricky for any president - the rest of the world was watching very closely to learn what extent we were willing to defend freedom.

As long as the Majority of Americans Supported the war in Vietnam NO AMERICAN president could have walked away from Vietnam. The Majority supported the war till 1968 when a shift occurred (Through I would venture that even as late as election day 1968 most Americans still supported the war, but it was a slim majority as opposed to the over whelming majority of previous years).

Thus Kennedy would have done what LBJ did, move more troops in. Only when a withdraw would NOT HAVE HARMED THE PRESIDENT POLITICALLY would Kennedy withdraw. That time period is AFTER 1968 and is why LBJ adopted a policy of turning the war over to the South Vietnamese that became Nixon's Vietnamenzation program.

But just as likely, since JFK would have been in his second term after his re-election in 11/64, he would not have been as politically driven to escalate our involvement. In other words, your "1968" might have come sooner.

So even if JFK wasn't ready to cut and run, I doubt very much that he would have pursued it with the same obsession of LBJ.

<http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html>

My understanding was that it was all but in operation when he came in.

Not so much that he was a bad president, but his term in office was very short, and for the most part was quite unremarkable in that almost nothing of substance was accomplished.

As far as the WORST Democrat to be president, I'd have to go with Lyndon Johnson.

NSAM 273, signed by LBJ on November 26, 1963, just four days after JFK's assassination.

<http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html>

Compare that to the wording in JFK's NSAM 263, which he signed on October 11, 1963.

<http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html>

Thus this is not a policy change but a work up (i.e. DRAFT) and a final policy paper. Lets look at the policy as to withdrawing troops:

October 11, 1963 Version:

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

November 26, 1963 Version:

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

The wording is the SAME. They is NO CHANGE IN as to the withdraw of American troops from Vietnam.

Furthermore the October 11, 1963 is marked "draft" while the November 26, 1963 is NOT. There are some slight policy changes between October 11, 1963 and November 26, 1963 versions, but none that indicates a change do to JFK's death. The changes indicate that the October 11, 1963 was a draft and someone did not like it but signed it anyway (and proceeded to make changes).

Remember this is the days of TYPEWRITERS not Word Processors, so if changes were to be made, the whole paper had to be re-typed. Given who had to review any changes the time frame (remember this is before the days of E-mail) exchange of the memo would be by secure couriers taking this memo around to make sure everyone agrees with the changes. Each person who had to review it would have read it and than passed it to the next person. Once everyone who had to read it had read the memo and no further changes were made, than and only than would the final "revised" memo that JFK wanted be typed for his signature. Given what happens is such papers several changes were probably made before the memo was typed for the President's Signature.

Thus there is NO WAY LBJ could have made the changes set forth between November 23 and November 26, 1963, the Changes reflect revisions that started with the October 11, 1963 memo. The only conclusion is that the November 26, 1963 memo reflects what JFK wanted the policy to be and that included expansion of the war.

One of the mistakes of people is to look at things from today's world NOT as it was when an event happened (such as the difference between word processors and secured E-mail lines and typewriters and couriers). The same things happens when viewing the politics of the time period. Kennedy had barely won election and viewed Goldwater as the most likely GOP Candidate (Goldwater would run against LBJ in 1964 so Kennedy was right). Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights acts and Kennedy knew that would help deliver the South to Goldwater. Goldwater was already strong in the West, all Goldwater needed was to show that Kennedy was "weak" on Defense and Kennedy would lose the 1964 election.

Now you may say, hay LBJ won in a landslide, and you would have been right, but LBJ won almost all of the black votes by backing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Nixon like Eisenhower had won 1/3 of the Black Vote in 1960), won the support of Labor (Which was wishy washy abut Kennedy), and manage to paint Goldwater as a radical right winger who would nuke the world in order to save it from the Communists (Goldwater was not such a nut, but he kept falling into the traps set by LBJ and kept saying things that LBJ was able to use to show Goldwater was a "nut").

Kennedy had more charisma than LBJ, and would have been able to what LBJ did (with the exception of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, no one but LBJ could have pushed that through) and won in a landslide, but in 1963 the campaign was just warming up and Kennedy had to plan for an attack on the right that he was losing "Vietnam" just like Truman "lost" China in 1949 (another GOP lie, but the political "reality" in 1963).

Thus they was no way ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT could have withdrawn from Vietnam in the 1960s. Such a withdraw would have been attacked as a "surrender to the Communists". The GOP would have run with that slogan and won with that slogan (It was the 1966 mid-term election that caused LBJ to expand Vietnam in 1965, hoping to show he would defend America against the "evil Communists").

It was not till Tet in 1968 did the Majority of Americans start to turn against the War in Vietnam. Up till Tet if an election would have been held to stay in Vietnam, most Americans would have voted to stay in. After Tet no, but before 1968 most Americans supported the War in Vietnam with the major opposition being from people who said Johnson was NOT expanding the war fast enough (They was some anti-war sentiment prior to 1968, but it was secondary to the expand the war groups).

With Tet and the ever increasing body count opposition to the war increased. Nixon hedged the issue with his "Secret Plan" to end the war, the groups who wanted it expanded believed that was his "secret plan", anti-war people believed withdraw was the Secret plan, and people who wanted to stay in but defeat the communists believed Nixon had some new plan to do so (All three groups were delusional but Nixon was able to win all three groups to his side in 1968). Thus Nixon won in 1968, but adopted the same plan LBJ had adopted after Tet, withdraw American Forces, turn over the equipment to the South Vietnamese and hope that the fall would be under some subsequent President.

My point here is simple, given the politics of 1963 NO PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM VIETNAM. Thus there is no way Kennedy had any plan to withdraw from South Vietnam.

Now Direct Dial started to come in in the 1950s, but operated assisted calls were still the norm in the early 1960s. Most Direct dial was local at first and than regional. AT&T only started to do the national lines to make direct dial possible only in 1963. At that point a new thing called "Area codes" started to be used (Prior to that period you called your local operator who made the connections for you).

Please note none of these lines were "Secure" and thus not used to transmit the memos. Secure teletypes did exist, but something like this would have been sent by courier given the nature of the document.

One of these days I am going to do a paper on how advances in communication technology have clouded our opinion of the past. When we read things from the past, we read it like something made today. The problem is we our viewing things as done through computers and their monitors (and maybe paper "hard copies") but that is NOT how the original papers were written. For example books prior to the Printing press where not written for individual reading, but to be read out loud to a group of people (The closest thing today is how a Priest or Minister reads the Bible in Church, this is a reflection that the church came form that time period when that was the ONLY WAY TO GET KNOWLEDGE FROM A BOOK TO MOST PEOPLE). Thus people who wrote books did not intend for you to read them on a computer screen, but to read them out loud to a large group of people who wanted to hear what was written (and thus how it sounded was more important than how it was written).

The printing press made it easier to to print books for individual reading, but until the 1850s and the invention of pulp paper books were still expensive and as such rare. You had more and more books design to be read alone, but most books were still written to be read aloud (Through unlike the earlier time period by professional speakers after the Printing press it became normal for ordinary people to read book out loud).

Pulp paper and high sped steam printing presses (about 1850) made the modern newspaper possible. Handbills also came out of this technology, thus for the first time you had things design to be read once and than tossed. Thus how it looked in Print became more important than how it sounded when spoken.

Radio made a change again, how the message sounded became important. With Radio you had the "Jingle" for you heard it you remembered it, thus sound more than substance became important.

With Television the jingle died, how the message looked become more important than how it sounded or how it was read.

With Computers how something is to be read is again important, as is its looks (With Sound a secondary issue given that many people turn off the sounds to their computers).

My point here is Technology change how we view things, but if we are to truly understand the context of any message we must also understand the medium it was intended to be viewed through. In regards to these memos, these were to be typed, hand revised, reviewed by other people, approved and than re-typed and reviewed again. We are NOT talking about deleting a few words of text and changing the fonts to make the changes fit, these were typewritten and for any revision it had to be completely typed again. Thus the change is a change agreed to over a long time period not over the 3 days between Dallas and November 26, 1963.

Because you do not like it? Polls taken of Americans during the 1960s supported the war till 1968 when it switch and even than most Americans wanted to stay in (It switch from overhwhelming support to bare majority support where it stayed till Watergate).

If you would have said something like the Senate kept Zero Budgeting the Vietnam war during the 1960s you might have had a point, but you do not even mention that political phenomena (While the Senate kept Zero Budgeting the war, the house kept on funding it. Opposition to Vietnam was centered in the Senate but Johnson knew most of that opposition was tactical, thus while the Senate would Zero Budget Vietnam, everyone in Government knew the house would put it back and the Senate would NOT oppose the final budget. Reagan did the same act with El Salvador funding in the 1980s, the house would zero budget the war, but the Senate would put the money back and than both houses would pass the final budget. Politics trumps ideology almost every time).

You can also mention people who opposed the Vietnam war (Such as Al Gore Sr who lost his seat in 1968 do to his perceived opposition to the War, but holding him up as an example would wreck your case, Gore Sr did opposed the war BUT HE LOST HIS SEAT FOR HIS OPPOSITION. i.e. evidence that most American supported the war even in 1968).

I know what you are going through, denial. You want Kennedy to be the savior of the US from Vietnam, instead of the person who pushed the US into Vietnam. The sad fact is Kennedy's action regarding Vietnam is on a straight path to what LBJ did. No deviation, and no change until after Tet. The one thing Kennedy was was he was a Politician and as a politician (like LBJ) Kennedy would not even have thought of withdraw till after the majority of Americans had also decided withdraw was best. Thus not Tell after Tet.

I can't believe no one here has cited Truman as the worst president (Democratic or Republican) of the 20th century. Say what you will about LBJ, but he was not an imperialist at heart, and he genuinely wanted to dispel poverty and racism from this country.

Truman, on the other hand, was one of the great fools of history. He fomented the Cold War--one that would claim the lives of millions all the world over. Some may get all misty-eyed about the desegregation of the Armed Forces, yet in lieu of the 100,000+ soldiers who died in our adventures in Korea and Vietnam, it doesn't mean diddly.

Do you think democracy ended in December 2000? Wrong, it ended in 1947, when the "heir" to Franklin Roosevelt vomited forth the National Security Act, establishing a permanent war economy while forging the CIA. Ho Chi Minh, and the socialists of Italy and Greece, would be the first of many to suffer the pangs of American "democracy" under Truman.

Oh yeah, "Give 'em hell, Harry" authorized the dropping of two atomic upon a country on the verge of surrender.

If only Henry A. Wallace were Roosevelt's VP during his last term, what a world this could have been.

LBJ was a good man at heart. Truman, I think youre right about him, even tho I admit I was once a fan.

I'm too busy defending WIlson to try and protect Harry but I sugest you read "Man of the People" by Alonzo Hamby, the premier Truman expert today. Truman was no imperialist and the idea that HE started the Cold War (cough cough STALIN) is historical foolishness. The rest of the post reveals no better knowledge of history outside of "The People's (Crappy) History."

The plan to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan had been made even before the War with Germany ended (Some indication it was made in 1943). The rationale for Dropping the bomb on Japan was that if the bomb FAILED to Explode, the Germans had more technical expertise than the Japanese to figure out what we did wrong (WWII bomb malfunctions were quite high thus the cause for the Fear). Thus it was Roosevelt who had agreed to drop the bombs on Japaneses cities AND THAT THE CITIES WERE TO BE SPARED ANY OTHER BOMBING SO WE COULD BETTER JUDGE HOW MUCH DAMAGE THE ATOMIC BOMB DID CAUSES. Thus by August 1945 the Five Cities reserved for the A-Bomb had not had ANY BOMBS dropped on them. The US Air Force was complain, they had no more "good" targets to hit and wanted to hit these five Cities with their incendiary bombs. Thus the Decision to Drop the bomb had already been made by Roosevelt and Truman just confirmed the Decision (and Japan was NOT on the Verge of Surrender, as long as Japan believed it had some room to maneuver it was NOT going to Surrender, that maneuver room ended with the Russian Invasion of Manchuria, on the day AFTER we dropped the A-bomb).

Stalin was a B------, and by the end of WWII had the Strongest Army in Europe (525 Plus Divisions). The US had a total of 90 Divisions and had a problem supply them overseas (The US Army did a study early in WWII and determined the US could field 267 Divisions without harming the National Economy, but than the US Navy told them they only had shipping to support 100 Divisions, Thus we fielded 90 Army Divisions and 10 Marine Divisions). Our Troops were upset about having to fight another war (i.e. the War with Japan) and we had several incidents where our troops coming to the US from Europe openly said they would NOT continue to Japan. The Surrender of Japan meant they did not have to, but Truman than had to demobilize the Army.

After every war the US has fought, a severe recession followed caused not only by the cut back in Government expenditures but the rapid de-mobilization of the Troops. Only after WWII did we avoid such a recession and that was by the act of Truman who refused to release all of the troops at once (He gradually released them into the Civilian Job Market), encouraged them to go to College on the GI Bill, AND maintained enough spending to avoid a recession in 1946. The ONLY PRESIDENT WHO MANAGED TO DEMOBILIZE AND AVOID A RECESSION.

AS to the CIA and NSA, while both were founded by Truman, they were directly drawn from the remnants of the OSS of WWII frame. Under Truman they were while controlled, it is only under Eisenhower did the CIA and NSA started to expand their rolls to include overthrowing foreign Governments, thus Truman left office in January 1953, the CIA plots in Iran and Guatemala took place in 1954, over a year after Truman left office. Truman often said Ike left the CIA off the short leash Truman had put the CIA on, a gross mistake by Ike. Under Truman the CIA/NSA did NOT overthrow foreign Governments but did provide intelligence on what was happening overseas AND how best to counter Communist expansion.

Stalin has been called the Greatest Fascist in History (And that by Mussolini) and as such to stay in power he had to have an enemy, and that was the US. Truman countered Stalin in Greece, Turkey and the rest of Europe not under Soviet Occupation with the Marshall Plan. Truman maneuvered West Berlin so that its Economy was tied in with West Germany not East Germany. Truman made sure not only did the Radical right did not return to power in Japan Germany, he strengthen the left in Both Countries (Through weakened the Communist party in both Countries).

Domestically, Truman ended white only officers clubs, and started the long road to desegregation. He rode the Witch Hunt of Anti-Communism (with the worse parts occurring under the Republican Controlled Congress of 1946-1948 and Eisenhower's Administration 1954-1961). The GOP kept on saying why could Truman NOT stop Stalin from taking over Eastern Europe (without saying that 525 Divisions vs 100 Divisions was not the "real" reason) and than accused him of "losing" China in 1949 (Again the GOP refused to look at who lost china, which was the Nationalist Chinese do to their corruption). Both loses were put on Truman, Truman Countered that he had stopped the Communists in Greece and Turkey as while as Western Europe and had formed NATO to protect Western Europe, but the GOP thought they had an issue and most Americans could not understand that even with the US having the only A-bomb, both the US and the USSR were roughly equal in Power on the Elbe. The US's greater Air power and Naval Power would prevent any Soviet Attack, but the lack of open seas as you leave Central Europe meant that the Soviet Red Army could also defeat any American invasion of Eastern Europe. In fact a stalemate that would last till 1989.

Truman realized that the USSR had two internal conflicts, it wanted to be "of the people" yet wanted to stay in power. These were in conflict and sooner or later would lead to the fall of the Soviet Government. The Soviet Dogma said it represented the people, but if it ever became clear that it no longer represented the people than its own dogma called for its overthrow. At the same time the Soviets wanted to avoid another invasion like Hitler's 1941 invasion even if that meant military occupation of Poland and other Eastern European countries. Thus given this inherent conflict the USSR would fall if it was contained and thus was born the policy of containment which lasted till the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.

Again going back to the Domestic economy, Truman tried to get Universal health care (but defeated in the Congress) and tired to get Medicare passed (which was adopted by LBJ in the 1960s). Truman's "Fair Deal" was a continuation of Roosevelt's "New Deal" But Truman had to fight A GOP Congress (1946-1948) and than the onset of the Cold War (1948) along with the Anti-Communists witch hunt of the time period. Truman managed to get Social Security (SS) expanded to disabled people (Originally SS only covered people over 65, but in the early 1950s Truman manged to get through Congress a "reform" of SS that expanded SS to disabled people who have a long work record.

Overall a good achievement for a person who had so many problems thrown at him at once. I do not see any other President (Including FDR) being able to handle ALL OF THE PROBLEMS Truman faced. He paved the way for the changes LBJ would get passed in the 1960s regarding Civil Rights, Welfare, Aid to the Disabled, Aid to the Inner Cities, Aid to the Farmers, Aid to the Veterans etc (He even form a version of the Peace Corp during the lat 1940s, but it was dismantled under Ike).

Overall one of the best Presidents the US has had. I do not know if ANYBODY could have done as well as he did from 1945 till 1953.


As to Wallace, if Wallace had made at least a half way attempt to kept the Big City Democratic Bosses happy he would have been FDR's running mate in 1944. The Problem was Wallace refused to even consider the election problems of the big city bosses o the big city bosses revolted against Wallace' nomination during the 1944 Democratic Convention. The bosses did not want corruption (the most corrupt inner city bosses had been Republicans) but these bosses had to get SOMETHING for their constituents. Wallace just would not address their needs, he was a Ivory tower man, a person who thought if you did right that is all that was needed. The big City Bosses knew better, politics is the art of the possible and Wallace was NOT able to address this need of the big city bosses, so the big city bosses revolted against him in 1944. Remember the old IRON rule of Politics, to do anything you have to be elected, to be elected you have to make a coalition. Unlike FDR who worked with those same big City Bosses, Wallace would not work with them. A sign of a bad politician and that failure lead to Wallace's failure to be President.

I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I appreciate the thoughfulness.

You didnt get one thing right in that whole statement.

He was a great president and a good guy in general.

At least he spelled Truman's name right. The rest, well, I agree with you.

I am totally convinced!

A lot of events that took place on his watch (not all of them, admitedly, his fault) shaped the modern myth that Democrats are soft on defense. His public tiff with MacArthur, the Korean war, etc, etc.

Heck, in many ways Mcarthyism was an outgrowth of Truman's actions; he spent so much time demonizing communism that he helped set the stage for Mcarthy's scare tactics. There's a couple interesting books floating around on the subject.

who was virtually done then found his "niche".

HST hated him.

MacArthur got what he deserved. He nearly caused war with China.

The whole begining of civil rights movement started under HST.

You guys are off base with this.

Read McCullough's book on HST.

Some have called Truman the real father of the neocons.

Always had mixed feelings about the failed haberdasher. Loved his bluntness and lack of pretension, and the common man quality we should seek in a Democratic president. But damn if he didn't birth the national security apparatus as you well-summarized.

Wilson gets my vote in this poll, if only for his white supremacism, disregard of suffragism and the phony sanctimony of the 14 points. Lying about getting involved in WW1 too. Tell the Latin Americans of his time about their 'right to self-determination' when the Marines stormed in on behalf of the United Fruit Company.

Harry Truman is arguably one of our top five presidents of all time. I should expect him to be reviled on this forum because he took a stand against the evils of Stalin, but calling him the worst president ever is ridiculous. He was one of the most principled and most wise presidents we have ever had. One could argue he was better than Roosevelt because he saw the threat of Stalin.

"If only Henry A. Wallace were Roosevelt's VP during his last term, what a world this could have been."

This tells me enough about you. Wallace advocated appeasment of the Soviet Union. Appeasing Stalin. What a great idea.

been pretty good and had some real achievements:

Wilson and the federal reserve system
FDR--with the New Deal/WWII
Truman--desegration of armed services/civil rights program/Marshall Plan.
Kennedy--Peace Corp/inspirational leadership
LBJ--Civil Rights/Medicare
Carter--Energy awareness/Human Rights/Environment
Clinton--balancing budget/prosperity

However, I think JFK is among the more over-rated presidents, but he is still head and shoulder above Bush I or II, Reagan, and Ford.

compared to most of the republicans in the 20th Century that's a collection of GIANTS! Only Teddy, and maybe Ike, can stand among them.

on edit: I'd add The Panama Canal Treaty to Carter's accomplishments.

If America would have grabbed hold of his ideas on energy,
we would be a healthier, safer Country.
The oil companies destroyed his presidency.

We'll never know, but I think RFK would have gotten us out of Vietnam,
and futhured the progressive cause.

The president is supposed to lead, and I think Carter did a poor job in that area. He some good ideas, but the mark of any good president (or leader for that matter) is to convince people that his ideas should be implemented and then put them into practice. While other presidents have solid accomplishments to stand on, Carter never showed the leadership needed to get his ideas off the drawing board. LBJ is a close second.

I think Carter and LBJ were two of the best... LBJ initiated more social programs for the poor and disadvantaged than anyone since FDR and Carter was the one person in the country that could run and bring back some honor and respect to the White House after Nixon. I have no idea who will be able to bring back honor and respect after we get rid of Dubya. Too bad the question was not about the three worst Republican presidents....now that would have been a real challenge.

You had high inflation, you had the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, you had the high oil prices caused by the Iran situation. On top of this, like Truman, Carter had to fudge a middle road between two impending disasters, High Inflation and High unemployment.

To defeat Inflation you increase unemployment, to decrease unemployment you increase inflation, but the country wanted BOTH inflation and Unemployment to drop. Carter had to solve that problem. Carter did it, he permitted inflation to raise enough so unemployment would drop. Carter was attacked for this but it was the best choice he could make. Because Carter made that choice, when Reagan became President, Reagan could reverse course and drop inflation by increasing unemployment (And Reagan was aided by Iraq-Iran War that had shifted from causing oil prices to go up, to one of causing oil prices to go down, for both Iran and Iraq wanted guns to kill each other and were selling their oil at any price to do so).

Thus much of what Carter faced was gone by 1980, like Truman he would have had an easier second term, but Reagan defeated Carter and inherited the benefits of Carter's acts.

As to the Panama Canal, something had to be done, Carter broke down and agreed to a transfer everyone knew had to occur anyway (Through Reagan would use it as an issue in 1980 and than refused to reverse it when he won). As to Taiwan, every since Nixon's trip to Red China in 1972 it was untenable for the US to recognize Taiwan as China's "Real Government". Nixon and Ford both refused to take the political heat to declare Red China the Legal Government of China. Carter took the hit (another act Reagan promised to reversed and didn't). Afghanistan, Carter took the heat for embargoing the 1980 Moscow Olympics, another act Reagan used against him (and an act that truly hurt the Former USSR, for the USSR was looking forward to the increase cash flow from the Olympics.

Carter's deregulation of the natural gas industry freed the industry to look for more natural gas ending the natural Gas shortage of the Mid-1980s (and kept enough regulations on Natural Gas to keep prices reasonable).

Thus Carter had a lot of achievements for his four years as President, and he faced more problems than any President since Truman.

I agree about RFK. Plus, if he's elected there's no Watergate. Reagan gets nomination for President in 1972 to run vs incumbant RFK. RFK wins, Reagan loses so there's no Reagan deficits, no Reagan "legacy", no Iran-Contra. Maybe no Bush Sr, then no Bush Jr. Maybe the worst that happens is we get President Dole after the 1976 election after he beats Vice President McGovern.

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."

Kennedy was a uniter. Or tried to be. Kennedy knew we are all free citizens, but we still need to be a country or else we'll collapse.

What's Dumbya* doing? Well, in 20 years I hope we won't need to quote because we all should remember his separatist and segregational policies that deliberately rip communities apart.

McKinnley(R)- Owned by the bankers
T.Roosevelt(R)- imperialist, conservationalist.
Taft(R)- Really wanted Supreme Court Nomination
Wilson(D)- Belonged at Princeton as a professor
Harding(R)- Worst President till W. Best thing he did was to die.
Coolidge(R)- Didn't run in 28 because he knew what would happen in 29
Hoover(R)- Served the country much better after his term
F.Roosevelt(D)- Like Lincoln, rammed some questionable stuff thru congress, but also like Lincoln, had to save the country.
Truman(D)- Wanted to remain in the senate. Did an outstanding job given the circumstances of his first term. Wasn't afraid to make the hard decisions. Marshall plan saved Europe.
Eisenhower(R)- FORE!....uh oh! another heart attack!
Kennedy(D)- Showed that he could be a leader.
Johnson(D)- Belonged in congress where he could wrangle deals. As President, wasn't interested in deals too much. Screwed by his preocupation with Vietnam.
Nixon(R)- Too worried about his place in history. Abused the power of the office.
Ford(R)- Couldn't do shit because of Watergate. Pardoned Nixon
Carter(D)- The right man at the wrong time.
Reagan(R)- Could read a telepromter well. Did not govern, left it up to his staff.
G.Bush(R)- Screwed by his own party. Owned by special intrest.
Clinton(D)-too busy fighting off attacks by republican congress
GW.Bush(R)- Worst.President.Ever

NAFTA, WTO, Telecom deregulation, welfare reform.

We'd be doing a lot better in G.W.B's America if Clinton hadn't given him such a great head start.

It appears that, early in the Clinton administration a choice was made that the passage of NAFTA was more important than the passage of health care. It boggles the mind.....a Democratic President.......with a Democratic Congress and we decided that exporting good jobs was a better idea than improving our broken health care system.

How much better off would we be today if he'd dropped NAFTA and pushed hard for health care.

From a Niteline interview with Robert Rubin:

Q: Mrs. Clinton, at this time, reportedly is angry with you and members of the economic team for suggesting that health care be put off while NAFTA is pushed.

Rubin: That may or may not be. I truly do not recollect it. Clearly, if you were going to have a full court press on NAFTA, you couldn't, at the exact same time, have a full court press on health care. But how much that delayed actively moving ahead with health care, I do not recollect.

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/nightline/clintonyears/clinton/interviews/rubin.html

When you give tax benefits to moving jobs and profits offshore, you're promoting tax avoidance not job exporting.

Notice I didn't say tax evasion...that's illegal, but avoidance is not.

I don't see a problem with promoting NAFTA or the WTO, but you can't monitarily reward companies for moving their money and jobs too.

International trade is fine and I think helpful, but it's the tax benefits, hidden by the House and Senate, in the tax code that have hurt the tax fairness system for YEARS!!!!!

If we could find sjome candidates willing to vote for that kind of tax reform, we'd all get a BIG BENEFIT!!!!!!!!!!!1

In their current incarnations NAFTA & IMF is a HUGE scam run by a cabal of very rich Global Corporations. This predatory supra-government feeds off 3rd world Slave Labor and avoids any environmental and human rights regulations. Adjusting the tax codes will not kill or even hinder this beast. In fact, adjusting the tax codes could interfere with the Right to Make Profits which is guaranteed to Global Corporations in Chapter 11 of the FTAA.

But in trying to think about his presidency without comparing it to what we have now, I feel pretty unhappy with a lot of it in retrospect. But then, I have strong disagreements with the whole "new" democrat agenda. In your fist sentence you nail the top things I consider to be terrible, horrible no good very bad things Clinton did. :(

i was not overly fond of that presidency personnally.. but god.. it seems like the good ole dance and sing days now

n/t

Lydon Johnson due to the Vietnam war.

I am from GA and love Carter. However, the failure of his administration led to the rise of Raygun and the eventual destruction of the Democratic majorities in Congress.

The wost Democratic President ever, is still better than the Best Repuke President ever!

Good for you "freetobegay." I especially hate the LBJ bashing. His "Great Society" has been there for the needy from 1965 (when most of the legislation was passed) until just recently, when the worst president in the history of this country started dismantling the social reforms of the '60s.

Drive through Selma on US-80, as I often do, and cross the Edmond Pettit Bridge without thinking of LBJ's call to George Wallace (listen to the LBJ tapes) before the Civil Rights march from Selma to Montgomery. LBJ authored Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity reforms. Too bad he is always damned for Vietnam. What folks need to know, or remember, is that when LBJ's people were at the table with Le Duc To in Paris late 1968, Nixon envoys sabotaged the peace plan by coercing the South Vietnamese government into walking away from the peace talks and betting on Nixon's plan to "end the war" (see The Trials of Henry Kissinger).

Funny, same thing happened 22 years later when George H. W. Bu$h traveled to Paris to promise Iran arms for their war against Iraq if they would hold the hostages through the election (Nov 1980) and until RR's inauguration day. That was the "lost day" in GWH Bu$h's log. But he was a long-time CIA guy. Surprised?

Thank you.

:hug:

19th century, I don't know enough history to make a decission on that.

By far the worst. In addition to the manufacture of the Tonkin Gulf incident which resulted in the deaths of more people than any one man should be reasonably cupable for, he was involved in at least 1 scandal while a Senator, for taking bribes if I recall. It was mentioned in passing in my FDR bio.

I'm also not too fond of Truman, b/c (all things considered), I am not happy with the use of the atomic bomb. I think it was senseless at that point, meant only to send a message to Stalin, and set a horrible precedent that will no doubt be someday picked up.

to be Clinton - though I did like Clinton.

Overall .. he really failed. LBJ beats him on Civil Rights.. and not just LBJ signing JFK's civil rights bill, he really enforced it.. he went after the KKK, brought in the NG etc.

Carter did nothing close of significance and was overall a failed presidency (much like the current one) that the people lost faith in.

I don't think Carter believed that he was up to the job of being president. It seemed to overwhelm him.

Ineffective maybe. I mean, the guy won the nobel peace prize so he must've done something right. And he IN NO WAY deserves to be compared to chimp.

he won the nobel prize AFTEr for being a GREAT Ex president..

I said he lost the faith of the people like the current president has. He did have failed policies. He's not B*.. not by any stretch.. hell no Democrat ever has been like that..

Carter did a lot of shit that was basically just more Republican bs, both domestically and abroad. He aided and abetted the encroaching corporatocracy at home, and pursued foreign policy which was kind of insane (eg, in Afghanistan).

His highlight....camp David.
His lowlight....Alowwing the Shaw of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment. Which caused the hostage situation. and
being from Kansas placing a wheat embargo against the Soviets (when they could buy wheat from about 20 other countries). We,re still paying a price for that (Unreliable producer).
The Olympic boycott wasn't too smart (didn't hurt anybody but OUR Olympic athletes).

He got taken advantage of-by the Iranians, by his own people (Vance), by the GOP.
He is the best ex-president, however.

...far too long to fight back, thus allowing the pukes to define him to this day.

terrific human being put in a ridiculousl hard position, but still, he really was the least effective.