• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ronald Reagan.... Good or Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Catawba said:
Originally Posted by Catawba
I am a true conservative, I believe in conserving our resources and environment for future generations.
Click to expand...



Foreign concept for you huh?[/QUOTE]
I think it would be for most conseratives.
 
Conservative said:
You are kidding, right?
Click to expand...

"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by James Madison, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry S. Truman."

Notable scholar surveys

"The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. of Harvard University.[2][dead link] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians; the results of this survey are given in the book The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents by William A. Degregorio. Schlesinger's son Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. conducted another poll in 1996, not currently on the chart below.

The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was ranked #22 in 1962, but was ranked #9 in the 1982 survey.

The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2002. The 1994 survey placed only two Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points, and placed two Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.[3][dead link][4][dead link]

The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr. and Stuart B. McIver, and published in the book Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[6]

* "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%."
* "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?” Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose no opinion or not applicable."

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[6]

The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[7] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[8][9] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan the worst."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States]Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
American said:
Foreign concept for you huh?
Click to expand...
I think it would be for most conseratives.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't have said it better myself, except I would have spelled conservatives correctly.
 
Catawba said:
I think it would be for most conseratives.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself, except I would have spelled conservatives correctly.[/QUOTE]
Well my misspelling of course voids my argument. Lucky you.
 
American said:
Well my misspelling of course voids my argument. Lucky you.
Click to expand...

No not at all, I am in complete agreement with you ~ conserving our resources and environment for future generations is a foreign concept to most conservatives.

My point was that if you are going to be a conservative, you should probably learn to spell the term correctly, not to mention that you should probably also learn what conserve means.
 
Catawba said:
"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by James Madison, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry S. Truman."

Notable scholar surveys

"The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. of Harvard University.[2][dead link] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians; the results of this survey are given in the book The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents by William A. Degregorio. Schlesinger's son Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. conducted another poll in 1996, not currently on the chart below.

The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was ranked #22 in 1962, but was ranked #9 in the 1982 survey.

The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2002. The 1994 survey placed only two Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points, and placed two Presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.[3][dead link][4][dead link]

The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr. and Stuart B. McIver, and published in the book Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[6]

* "George W. Bush has just finished five years as President. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: 2%; Near Great: 5%; Average: 11%; Below Average: 24%; Failure: 58%."
* "In your judgment, do you think he has a realistic chance of improving his rating?” Two-thirds (67%) responded no; less than a quarter (23%) responded yes; and 10% chose no opinion or not applicable."

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[6]

The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and "professional observers of the presidency"[7] who ranked presidents in a number of categories initially in 2000 and more recently in 2009.[8][9] With some minor variation, both surveys found that historians consider Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three best presidents by a wide margin and William Henry Harrison (to a lesser extent), Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan the worst."
Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Wait...a majority of university level educators found George Bush to be a bad president? think the liberal policies of Roosevelt were superior to Reagan? Shocking man...just shocking!!!
 
VanceMack said:
Wait...a majority of university level educators found George Bush to be a bad president? think the liberal policies of Roosevelt were superior to Reagan? Shocking man...just shocking!!!
Click to expand...

Almost as shocking that conservatives rated Bush a good president! :shock:

Not surprising though was that both liberals and conservatives rank FDR higher than Reagan!
 
Catawba said:
Almost as shocking that conservatives rated Bush a good president! :shock:

Not surprising though was that both liberals and conservatives rank FDR higher than Reagan!
Click to expand...

You really have a hatred for Reagan who allowed the American people to keep more of what they earned. Your opinion is absolutely misguided and illogical.

Your overall concern about Reagan was his debt yet ignore how much Debt FDR actually set into motion. Being ranked in the top 10 isn't bad. Tell me how many people were alive during Washington or Lincoln eras?

You put way too much faith in historical rankings instead of actual results. All is just another attempt to divert from that which you really do not understand.
 
Catawba said:
Almost as shocking that conservatives rated Bush a good president! :shock:

Not surprising though was that both liberals and conservatives rank FDR higher than Reagan!
Click to expand...

maybe the liberals and conservatives respected Roosevelts words of caution regarding creating government subsistence plans because they have the tendency to sap the will of the recipient.

Maybe liberals love him because in reality he fostered in an era of political treats that created generations of crippled and dependent pets (voters).

Maybe conservatives liked him because he acted in a time of war.

I think if people were being intelligent they would say Bush diod some things well and some things very poorly. He was a terrible fiscal conservative. He did a great job of executing a war but a lousy job of managing the victory. He provided more in humanitarian aid to the residents of the world than any other president. Depending on your perspective...thats a good and/or bad thing...

Ultimately...citing polls is a silly exercise. Anyone that has worked in the research field knows precisely how to get the responses you desire.
 
Conservative said:
You really have a hatred for Reagan who allowed the American people to keep more of what they earned. Your opinion is absolutely misguided and illogical.

Your overall concern about Reagan was his debt yet ignore how much Debt FDR actually set into motion. Being ranked in the top 10 isn't bad. Tell me how many people were alive during Washington or Lincoln eras?

You put way too much faith in historical rankings instead of actual results. All is just another attempt to divert from that which you really do not understand.
Click to expand...

The actual results are even worse than Reagan's historical ranking below FDR.

Reagan's short-term view policies are why he is considered by many to be the father of most of our major problems today with our economy, our tax system and our National debt, our energy problems, and our environment.

Reagan was the first president since 1950 that increased the National debt by his drastic tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. That ended the golden era, our most prosperous time in history.

And Reagan's deregulation of pollution contributed to increased cases of skin cancer and global warming today that threatens all life on the planet.

(sarcasm on) Yes, we certainly have a lot to thank Reagan for! And he had great hair!(sarcasm off)
 
Catawba said:
The actual results are even worse than Reagan's historical ranking below FDR.

Reagan's short-term view policies are why he is considered by many to be the father of most of our major problems today with our economy, our tax system and our National debt, our energy problems, and our environment.

Reagan was the first president since 1950 that increased the National debt by his drastic tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. That ended the golden era, our most prosperous time in history.

And Reagan's deregulation of pollution contributed to increased cases of skin cancer and global warming today that threatens all life on the planet.

(sarcasm on) Yes, we certainly have a lot to thank Reagan for! And he had great hair!(sarcasm off)
Click to expand...

There are different schools of thought regarding just how much of an influence a president actually has on the economy...but...assuming the president is SOLELY responsible for the economy...perhaps Reagan was forced into the spending he allowed to combat Carters double digit and climbing inflation rates and collapse of the economic and military infrastructure...the increases in government, etc.

You werent by any chance old enough to buy a house during the Carter years were you?
 
VanceMack said:
maybe the liberals and conservatives respected Roosevelts words of caution regarding creating government subsistence plans because they have the tendency to sap the will of the recipient.

Maybe liberals love him because in reality he fostered in an era of political treats that created generations of crippled and dependent pets (voters).

Maybe conservatives liked him because he acted in a time of war.

I think if people were being intelligent they would say Bush diod some things well and some things very poorly. He was a terrible fiscal conservative. He did a great job of executing a war but a lousy job of managing the victory. He provided more in humanitarian aid to the residents of the world than any other president. Depending on your perspective...thats a good and/or bad thing...

Ultimately...citing polls is a silly exercise. Anyone that has worked in the research field knows precisely how to get the responses you desire.
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion, yet scholars (conservative and liberal) still rate FDR higher than Reagan and Bush. Not just in one poll, but consistently through history. That is the significance of historical ranking which is based on all the credible polling done throughout history.
 
Catawba said:
The actual results are even worse than Reagan's historical ranking below FDR.

Reagan's short-term view policies are why he is considered by many to be the father of most of our major problems today with our economy, our tax system and our National debt, our energy problems, and our environment.

Reagan was the first president since 1950 that increased the National debt by his drastic tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. That ended the golden era, our most prosperous time in history.

And Reagan's deregulation of pollution contributed to increased cases of skin cancer and global warming today that threatens all life on the planet.

(sarcasm on) Yes, we certainly have a lot to thank Reagan for! And he had great hair!(sarcasm off)
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure why I respond to you because obviously you have no interest in getting actual results.

I just love that tax cut for the rich line that you and the other liberals tell us. Only a true liberal believes that the rich can fund the liberal appetite and it is only liberals that believe the rich became rich by taking money from the poor.

You claim to be old enough to be around during the Reagan years. If so and you were working you got a tax cut just like the rich. You didn't pay as much in taxes as the rich therefore you didn't get as big of a tax cut. So what? Why do you think you deserve a bigger tax cut than those who pay the most in taxes?

I do have a lot to be thankful for thanks to Reagan. I wasn't rich but I doubled my income during the Reagan years and got to keep more of what I earned. The 25% tax cut helped me pay off debt. What did you do with your increased take home pay?
 
VanceMack said:
There are different schools of thought regarding just how much of an influence a president actually has on the economy...but...assuming the president is SOLELY responsible for the economy...perhaps Reagan was forced into the spending he allowed to combat Carters double digit and climbing inflation rates and collapse of the economic and military infrastructure...the increases in government, etc.

You werent by any chance old enough to buy a house during the Carter years were you?
Click to expand...

What? You don't think 21% home mortgage rates spirs home buying? How can that be?
 
Conservative said:
Not exactly sure why I respond to you because obviously you have no interest in getting actual results.

I just love that tax cut for the rich line that you and the other liberals tell us. Only a true liberal believes that the rich can fund the liberal appetite and it is only liberals that believe the rich became rich by taking money from the poor.

You claim to be old enough to be around during the Reagan years. If so and you were working you got a tax cut just like the rich. You didn't pay as much in taxes as the rich therefore you didn't get as big of a tax cut. So what? Why do you think you deserve a bigger tax cut than those who pay the most in taxes?

I do have a lot to be thankful for thanks to Reagan. I wasn't rich but I doubled my income during the Reagan years and got to keep more of what I earned. The 25% tax cut helped me pay off debt. What did you do with your increased take home pay?
Click to expand...

All your posts indicate is a priority for me, me, me. Through your posts, a self-centered portrait is being painted to express adoration for the father of self-interest rather than what was in the best long-term interest of the country.
 
Conservative said:
What? You don't think 21% home mortgage rates spirs home buying? How can that be?
Click to expand...

Maybe the Reagan defenders should just employ liberal defense mechanisms...its not Reagans fault...look at the mess he inherited from his predecessor...

look...basic facts...a LOT had to change...and a lot more could have been done to control spending. Reagan was a good leader that made mistakes. The question is...what do WE trhe people hire a president to do/ do we want them to 'fix' the country? Then we are hiring a king. the problem (a GOOD problem to have...because we really dont WANT a king) is...it doesnt work that way...not for Reagan...not for Clinton...not for Bush...and not for Obama.
 
VanceMack said:
Maybe the Reagan defenders should just employ liberal defense mechanisms...its not Reagans fault...look at the mess he inherited from his predecessor...

look...basic facts...a LOT had to change...and a lot more could have been done to control spending. Reagan was a good leader that made mistakes. The question is...what do WE trhe people hire a president to do/ do we want them to 'fix' the country? Then we are hiring a king. the problem (a GOOD problem to have...because we really dont WANT a king) is...it doesnt work that way...not for Reagan...not for Clinton...not for Bush...and not for Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Our Founders created a government that had three equal branches and you are right the President gets too much credit and too much blame. He gets a lot of help in doing both from the Congress. Congress has to approve all the spending and the Congress had to approve the Reagan tax cuts. There is no question that the Reagan tax cuts, although demonized by the Democrats brought us out of the Carter malaise and economic mess and brought the Congress along kicking and screaming to create millions of jobs and strong economic growth.

What we have today is a complicit Congress and a President of the same ideology and doing exactly the opposite of what Reagan did. Obviously the results are different as well.
 
winston53660 said:
yeah Reagan certainly was a crowd pleaser. So have several other people been in history like Charlie Chaplin.
Click to expand...

On the same list they are touting, Elvis was listed as #8 and Oprah was listed as #9. Quite the prestigious list! ;)
 
Catawba said:
That would make it a Micky Mouse poll! :lol:
Click to expand...

I would agree if Bill Clinton wasn't ranked as number 7. I guess mostly women voted in the poll if Clinton was able to rise to top 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom