who is the worse president in our history?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

There's hardly any debate. Warren Harding. Horrible.

BTW- Bush isn't the first to invade a sovereign nation. The Mexican War was clearly a conquest war. And in my opinion, this war was justified.

It was? You are of course aware that Mexico started the war, aren't you? Polk sent an ambassabor to discuss matters with Mexico, he was kicked out, then the radical Mexicans installed a tin-pot dictator, who started a war with us.

We wanted to buy the territories in question, a la the Louisiana Purchase. After the war, we still paid them 15 megabucks in compensation, in gold and silver, as part of the treaty.

Jefferson was the first to invade a sovereign nation, in the efforts to stop the Barbary pirates.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

James Polk.


The worst ever.

Okay. Polk won a war that Mexico started. What did he do that was a failure and thus earn your scorn?

 

[Captain America]

I think the worst president is George W. Bush.

Actually, according to some stats I read today, your wrong. At least in the court of public opinion. Bush comes in at third worst. There were two before him that were considered worse than he is.

 

[KCConservative]

I don't think you can rate any president in the last 20 years. More time must pass before their policies can be fully assessed. It took generations to discover the consequenses of Truman dropping the bombs on Japan, for instance. Conversly, it may take years to see what the war on terror may bring, good or bad.

 

[cascadian]

I don't know enough about history to say, but Dubya has become the most unpopular president since the existence of reliable opinion polls. That alone would probably put him somewhere in the bottom 10.

As for historical legacy, the Iraq war and the War on Terror will be the most important.

I think the Iraq war will be remembered as a massive failure that led to more harm than good to the world and the US. Not only was it immoral, but it wasn't even an optimal solution for the US's rational self interest. The only good thing I can say about it, is that it lifted some seriously flawed sanctions.

I predict the War on Terror will probably be remembered like McCarthy and the Red Scare: An over-reaction that threatens people's liberties and fueled the political power of the ambitious. Then again, history is written by those who win, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't know enough about history to say, but Dubya has become the most unpopular president since the existence of reliable opinion polls. That alone would probably put him somewhere in the bottom 10.

As for historical legacy, the Iraq war and the War on Terror will be the most important.

...

I think you are right, but people who understand a little about economics will put his policies inheriting a surplus budget and running up a massive amount of debt right up there in terms of his biggest screw-ups.

 

[Connecticutter]

I don't know enough about history to say, but Dubya has become the most unpopular president since the existence of reliable opinion polls. That alone would probably put him somewhere in the bottom 10.

I don't believe that opinion polls should be a huge factor in determining the worst president. Think about what Lincoln's poll numbers would have been - probably lackluster in the union and abysmal in the union+confederacy.

I can think of other president who may have had bad poll numbers but were not bad: Madison, Q Adams, Reagan (low 40s at one point).

As for historical legacy, the Iraq war and the War on Terror will be the most important.

I think the Iraq war will be remembered as a massive failure that led to more harm than good to the world and the US. Not only was it immoral, but it wasn't even an optimal solution for the US's rational self interest. The only good thing I can say about it, is that it lifted some seriously flawed sanctions.

What about removing Saddam Hussein from power?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

# - President - Political Party - Average ranking
1 - Abraham Lincoln - Republican - 1.64
2 - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat - 2
3 - George Washington - Federalist-leaning non-partisan - 2.81
4 - Thomas Jefferson - Democratic-Republican - 4.45
5 - Theodore Roosevelt - Republican - 4.82

those were the top 5 rated presidents in US history...now, for the bottom 5 rated presidents in US history...

42 - Warren G. Harding - Republican - 37.45
41 - James Buchanan - Democrat - 36.91
40 - Franklin Pierce - Democrat - 35.27
39 - Andrew Johnson - Democrat 34.91
38 - William Henry Harrison - Whig 33.57


...here are 5 other notable rankings...

14 - Ronald Reagan - Republican - 13.88
21 - Bill Clinton - Democrat - 20.67
22 - George W. Bush - Republican - 21
25 - George H. W. Bush - Republican - 22.14
27 - Jimmy Carter - Democrat - 26.44

these ranking are according to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._presidents

 

[Connecticutter]

I feel that William Henry Harrison didn't get a fair shake. Also, president Harding had a tough job taking us out of the WWI era and dealing with scandals. He also supported civil rights so he can't be that bad.

I think there are several different measures:
1) policy - who do you think won on the worst platform, stood for the worst ideas, took the worst actions, etc.
2) effectiveness - who do you think was least effective at actually getting things done and executing their policy. This includes charisma, etc.
3) ethics - who was the most unethical president?

Here are some suggested worsts:
1) Maybe some of the antebellum guys - Fillmore, Pierce. In modern times, I'm not a fan of LBJ because of his lefty economic policy and bad policy with regards to the war in Vietnam.
2) It's hard to say - every president has at least something to show for their effort. James Buchanan? I'd actually say George W. Bush is in the running if we were only ranking domestic policy, but he's pretty effective on foreign policy.
3) Nixon?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

It was? You are of course aware that Mexico started the war, aren't you? Polk sent an ambassabor to discuss matters with Mexico, he was kicked out, then the radical Mexicans installed a tin-pot dictator, who started a war with us.

We wanted to buy the territories in question, a la the Louisiana Purchase. After the war, we still paid them 15 megabucks in compensation, in gold and silver, as part of the treaty.

Jefferson was the first to invade a sovereign nation, in the efforts to stop the Barbary pirates.

What are you talking about??

First of all, we are talking about the Mexican American War that happened in the 1840's. The Louisiana Purchase (the land bought by Jefferson for 15 million) happened 40 years before the Mexican American War. Part of that area was disputed with Mexico, but we did not buy it after the war.

Second of all, this war is dramatically more complicated than you think. People started moving to Texas decades before, and they lived there for decades as complete Mexican citizens. That is until they legalized slavery and decided that Texan citizens should have a right to bear arms. They, following the tradition of the American colonies, declare their independence and fight off the Mexicans to become a completely independent and sovereign nation.

Soon, obviously, they're picked up by the US as a state. Mexico, who had owned the land merely years ago, did not like this a whole lot. US troops station troops in Texas, and in areas south of what was accepted by Texans and Mexicans as Texas into disputed Mexican Territory. Such as a French troops moving into the edges of the Louisiana purchase, hoping to get some of it back.

Naturally the Mexicans attack, and the war is started. Why did the US troops go so far south? Probably wanted to get the most land they could, but probably most to start a war so they could that taking Mexico would seem justified.

The territory gained was not paid for by Jefferson, who has been in fact dead for 20 years at the time of the War. The US didn't buy any of it, except the small Gadsden purchase of the very bottom of what is now New Mexico and Arizona, most of taken in the war.

Actually, according to some stats I read today, your wrong. At least in the court of public opinion. Bush comes in at third worst. There were two before him that were considered worse than he is.

In public opinion, sure. In a historians view of history there simply isn't the retrospect the decide on any of the presidents in the last 20 years.

I don't think you can rate any president in the last 20 years. More time must pass before their policies can be fully assessed. It took generations to discover the consequenses of Truman dropping the bombs on Japan, for instance. Conversly, it may take years to see what the war on terror may bring, good or bad.

Wow, exactly what I was thinking.

I don't know enough about history to say, but Dubya has become the most unpopular president since the existence of reliable opinion polls. That alone would probably put him somewhere in the bottom 10.

This is one of the reasons that we need retrospect.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What are you talking about??

I'm talking about the end of the Mexican American War. That was a different event than the Loseranna Purchase. When Mexico lost the war it started, the US again offered to pay for the territory is was now annexing regardless. The first time we'd sent an envoy to Mexico City to discuss differences and make a cash offer, the Mexicans through him out, then they threw their vice-president out, and el Presidente Santa Ana established a dictatorship, which then proceeded to start a war with the US.

That's what I'm talking about.

As far as the border issue was concerned, the Treaty of Velasquez specified that the Mexican Army would evacuate the nation of Texas, passing south of the Rio Grande. If the Mexicans wanted to pretend the border was north of that line later, that's their problem. That just establishes a precedent for their perfidy.

First of all, we are talking about the Mexican American War that happened in the 1840's. The Louisiana Purchase (the land bought by Jefferson for 15 million) happened 40 years before the Mexican American War. Part of that area was disputed with Mexico, but we did not buy it after the war.

Yeah we did.

EkBalam Started a Thread on the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

Second of all, this war is dramatically more complicated than you think. People started moving to Texas decades before, and they lived there for decades as complete Mexican citizens. That is until they legalized slavery and decided that Texan citizens should have a right to bear arms. They, following the tradition of the American colonies, declare their independence and fight off the Mexicans to become a completely independent and sovereign nation.

A large fraction of the Mexican citizens in Texas agreed and participated in the rebellion.

Soon, obviously, they're picked up by the US as a state. Mexico, who had owned the land merely years ago, did not like this a whole lot. US troops station troops in Texas, and in areas south of what was accepted by Texans and Mexicans as Texas into disputed Mexican Territory. Such as a French troops moving into the edges of the Louisiana purchase, hoping to get some of it back.

Mexico disputed the territory. But they'd signed a treaty already naming the Rio Grande as the border. Pity. They cut off their own legs.

Naturally the Mexicans attack, and the war is started. Why did the US troops go so far south?

Because it was the southern border of the nation? That might have something to do with it. Or it might be that citizens of the nation living north of that river were subject to incursions from the Mexican army and it has always been the duty of the government to protect its citizens from invasion? That might have something to do with it, too.

Probably wanted to get the most land they could, but probably most to start a war so they could that taking Mexico would seem justified.

Unfortunately, I don't suffer from BAA, Blame America Always. The facts are pretty clear. Mexico misbehaved, Mexico got spanked, but was paid for it's ceded territory.

The territory gained was not paid for by Jefferson,

No, probably not, since I've been discussing the Mexican American War. That's pretty good of you to figure that one out.

The US didn't buy any of it, except the small Gadsden purchase of the very bottom of what is now New Mexico and Arizona, most of taken in the war.

We paid 15 megabucks for the big piece, and later on we paid for the Gadsden parcel for the convenience of building a railroad.

 

[cascadian]

I don't believe that opinion polls should be a huge factor in determining the worst president. Think about what Lincoln's poll numbers would have been - probably lackluster in the union and abysmal in the union+confederacy.

I can think of other president who may have had bad poll numbers but were not bad: Madison, Q Adams, Reagan (low 40s at one point).

I think Dubya has been consistently low for an unprecedented time. I still don't think much of Reagan, but he was popular for most of his presidency. I have to give him some credit for that.

What about removing Saddam Hussein from power?

Well, nobody liked Saddam. But we haven't seen his replacement yet. Will it be civil war or a conservative religious government like the Taliban? I happen to think that latter two are likely and I don't know if I would prefer them to Saddam yet. On top of that, the US simply can't afford this war right now. The economic consequences will be judged harshly by those in the future.

I have to add to the chorus to say that ranking Bush requires some speculation, but I think its worthwhile to note that many previous presidents didn't enter the discussion so early in such an ignominious way.

 

[Connecticutter]

I think Dubya has been consistently low for an unprecedented time. I still don't think much of Reagan, but he was popular for most of his presidency. I have to give him some credit for that.

Okay. Here's the real issue that I have: I don't believe that approval ratings at the time of the presidency should be a significant factor in ranking presidents from best to worst.

I gave 3 measures: policy, effectiveness, ethics. In terms of policy and ethics, approval ratings are irrelevant. When measuring effectiveness, approval ratings might be a symptom of an ineffective president, but its certainly not how I'd measure it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Okay. Here's the real issue that I have: I don't believe that approval ratings at the time of the presidency should be a significant factor in ranking presidents from best to worst.

I gave 3 measures: policy, effectiveness, ethics. In terms of policy and ethics, approval ratings are irrelevant. When measuring effectiveness, approval ratings might be a symptom of an ineffective president, but its certainly not how I'd measure it.

Ethics??? Come on. You show me an honest president and I will show you a terrible president.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think Dubya has been consistently low for an unprecedented time. I still don't think much of Reagan, but he was popular for most of his presidency. I have to give him some credit for that.

Well, nobody liked Saddam. But we haven't seen his replacement yet. Will it be civil war or a conservative religious government like the Taliban? I happen to think that latter two are likely and I don't know if I would prefer them to Saddam yet. On top of that, the US simply can't afford this war right now. The economic consequences will be judged harshly by those in the future.

I have to add to the chorus to say that ranking Bush requires some speculation, but I think its worthwhile to note that many previous presidents didn't enter the discussion so early in such an ignominious way.

This discussion could have been held at anytime since we had more than one American president to compare, and a large fraction would vote that the current guy, whom they of course didn't vote for, was the worst ever.

Since FDR was president before Bush, Bush can't be the worst. (Socialist Security and the subsequent Great Slide Downhill begins)

Since Wilson was president before Bush, Bush can't be the worst. (WWI, the Federal Reserve System)

Since Carter was president before Bush, Bush can't be the worst. (Stagflation, no testosterone, no cerebral EEG activity)

Since Ford was president before Bush, Bush can't be the worst. (WIN Buttons? Oh, come on!)

Who else? Clinton? (Rape, perjury, WACO, impeachment, coffee, Motel 6, too many to list)

Bush? (Broke Tax Promise, which put a rapist in the White House. Failed to act on the Yugoland matter, at all, let alone correctly. "Read My Hips" sealed his fate.)

Nixon? (Policy wise, I don't know why the liberals hate him. He only had one FBI file, too. Someone else had over a thousand.)

Johnson. (Tonkin Gulf Resolution says it all, don't it?)

JFK? (Damn lucky we didn't get in a nuclear war with this callow youth running the show.)


So, there ya have it. IMO Boy Bushy is probably tenth on the list of "worst" Presidents. But it's really impossible to place him for two reasons:

1) He's not done yet. He's got two and a half years left in which he can either really screw things up (signing an amnesty bill for 20 million wetbacks will do it), or you think he's got two and a half years to reform his record.

2) We don't have the perspective of history on much of what's happening, and we certainly don't even know all of what's going on yet.

 

[Hoot]

1.6 trillion, and counting, added to the deficit.

That does it for me, right there.

 

[Iriemon]

1.6 trillion, and counting, added to the deficit.

That does it for me, right there.

And you're being kind and not counting the additional $1.1 trillion additioanl more he has "borrowed" from the SS trust fund. The total Govt debt has increased $2.7 trillion. And counting.

 

[Connecticutter]

1.6 trillion, and counting, added to the deficit.

That does it for me, right there.

Not as bad as you think:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Debt as a ratio to our GDP is not as high as it's been. It's government spending we sould be worried about. While President Bush hasn't used the veto power, I think its mostly the fault of congress.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Yeah we did [buy all the land from Mexico that we gained in the war].

EkBalam Started a Thread on the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (The Mexican-American Treaty of Guagalupe Hidalgo.)

We bought the Gadsden Purchase after the war. This was not the land we took in the war, but a little bit more to add. The land taken in war was not paid for.

A large fraction of the Mexican citizens in Texas agreed and participated in the rebellion.

Of course these were Anglo Mexican citizens, but Mexican non the less I suppose. They did rebel and declare independence, but the southern border was never clearly defined, and understandings between Texas and Mexico usually didn't place it at the Rio Grande.

Mexico disputed the territory. But they'd signed a treaty already naming the Rio Grande as the border. Pity. They cut off their own legs.

Hence the fact that Texas' Independence was warranted isn't what I'm refuting, merely the fact that it was a stretch that the US considered the Rio Grande the Southern border -

and for good or evil did so to start a war to get land.

 

[Iriemon]

Not as bad as you think:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Debt as a ratio to our GDP is not as high as it's been. It's government spending we sould be worried about. While President Bush hasn't used the veto power, I think its mostly the fault of congress.

True, the govt could just eliminate the SS/medicare program and that would take care of most the problem.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

EkBalam Started a Thread on the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (The Mexican-American Treaty of Guagalupe Hidalgo.)

Oh, I see what you are taking about. Not the Gadsden purchace, The money given in the treaty that ended the war. I never made the connection that the money would be for the land taken.

 

[BodiSatva]

George Washington was obviously the worst president...
Followed by: FDR & Lincoln

 

[Hoot]

George Washington was obviously the worst president...
Followed by: FDR & Lincoln

Earth to BodiSatva! Come in please!

 

[easyt65]

While a good argument can be made that any President who does nothing while his country is invaded by more than 12 MILLION illegals draining $30-40 Million a year from our economy and jeopardizing our health care system, placing the economic burden on American tax payers, AND speaking out for making them all citizens, which would elevate that $30-40 Million a year to $50-60 Million once they all become eligible for every social program this country offers, is the worst President in history.

However, an Impeached President who betrays his oath of office while trampling on the Constitution AND who SELLS an enemy nation's military the technology to reach and FRY millions of Americans with their nuclear weapons, all for campaign contributions, definitely has the edge in 'Worst U.S. President in History!

 

[BodiSatva]

Alright HOOT! then who do you think was the worst? Al Gore? Erin Burr? They did way more for the Polar Ice Cap Restoration than any other President...Dude, you got to know that. :roll: