The Worst President?? I think not....

[Fat Old Guy]

" Id be willing to vote for a Republican like John McCain "

 

That would be a big mistake. As I've said before, I've been told by both Senators and staffers that McCain is a small minded and vindictive person. Evidently, if you oppose McCain on any issue, you have become his enemy and will set out to damage or destroy you. He really would have made an interesting Prez.

[firstpusk]

FOG, that is an interesting comment. I don't doubt it is true, either. Perhaps it was karma that a small minded, vindictive opponent wrapped himself in the stars and bars, visited Bob Jones University and called the senator from Arizona a hypocrite. Bush must have really burned his butt.

[Hunt]

It's interesting to me how the Monica scandal continues to loom over the Clinton presidency the same way the Watergate scandal loomed over the Nixon presidency--although to me, they are quite different. But one gave us Carter, and the other gave us GWB--in both cases I suggest these candidates would never have won, or even made it to the nomination, if the other party hadn't been so weakended by scandal. I liked Carter, but he wasn't an effective president. What I dislike the most about Bush is that although he took office in a very divided country (by a close vote), his instincts have been to polarize the country even further, not bring it together. Whatever you may think about Clinton, most of his policies were relatively middle-of-the-road, which is probably why he was reelected. I thought that would be true of Bush, too (as it pretty much was for his father) but that hasn't been the case.

From what I've read, Warren Harding may have been the worst president, and I think Nixon is the one who damaged our country the most in my lifetime. But I think Bush is pretty bad.

[packsaddle]

Hops_scout, in the original post, wrote something that has bothered me since then. He wrote, "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

 

Vietnam had been in conflict many times over the centuries and most recently with the French. The treaty in 1954 specified an agreement in which the south would provisionally remain separate from the north until an election would be held in 1956, at which time a unified government would be elected. The Vietnamese agreed to this, the French agreed, and all parties to the effort (including the USA who had largely funded the French) agreed.

 

But prior to 1956, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam rejected the Geneva accord which called for unification and elections in 1956 and as a result no election was held. The USA supported his decision. In 1959 North Vietnam declared war on South Vietnam with the aim of achieving the unification that was supposed to have happened in 1956. This, I could argue, would be a more accurate beginning of the Vietnam War although the USA only had advisors there at the time.

 

But our 'formal' entry did not occur until the Johnson administration asked for and was given the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. This, too, would be an arguable beginning of the war for it was the beginning of large-scale American bombing of North Vietnam. I suppose that Hops_scout could argue that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was merely a hoax to get Congress on board the war effort. His statement that Vietnam never attacked the USA indicates such (and many other people also assert this is the case). But if he supports the legitimacy of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, he must then agree that in 1964 we WERE attacked by North Vietnam, legitimizing our subsequent decisions and actions.

 

Later in these posts it was mentioned that Nixon (a crook) begat Carter (an honest president who was, nevertheless, ineffective). I would also mention that Ford was, I believe, an honest president.

I would also argue that Johnson begat Nixon. But where Johnson was guilty of deception, he was also the victim of his own arrogance and honestly suffered with the loss of so many lives. I sincerely doubt that Nixon had any such feelings or concerns for what he wrought.

And although Bush and his administration has blood on their hands, I give them the benefit of my doubt and reserve judgement for the time being as to their feelings and concerns. But they are building my doubts as these days go by and it is becoming more and more difficult not to view them in Nixonian terms.

[SR540Beaver]

Pack,

 

No disrespect is meant towards Hops, but what he posted is one of those partisan talking points e-mails that circle the globe repeatedly. I've gotten this particular set of "facts" numerous times for quite a while now. Both sides have folks who write this stuff and push it out into the public domain for consumption. Both sides play fast and lose with the facts. Sean Hannity likes to point out how many weapons systems that Kerry has voted against while ignoring Republican politicians on his show that even admit that what started out as a good bill turned into a bad bill when all the pork was added. It all depends on who you are rooting for and how you use the "facts". Hannity has never mentioned that papa Bush and Cheney were scaling back the military and disapproving weapons systems after the cold war. Again, both sides employee these tactics to "prove" their points against their candidates opponents. I consider most of this stuff junk mail regardless of which side it comes from and delete it.

[Rooster7]

I sincerely doubt that Nixon had any such feelings or concerns for what he wrought.

 

Hmmm ... By what magical powers are you able to see the heart of Richard Nixon and judge him? Given the burden of leading the most powerful nation in the world, during times such as these, I wonder how you would fair. How many Americans would be pointing to your bloody hands? Or would they be pointing at the bodies of their countrymen due to your lack of courage to act when it was necessary? Its easy to criticize the Presidents, especially when the high and mighty media always seems to have the solution.

 

I like Bush. I trust Bush. And Im happy hes in office. One of these days, I hope you get to live with the likes of Al Gore as President. Oops, wait a minuteNow, Im just being nasty. I shouldnt wish that on anyone.

[packsaddle]

SR540Beaver, I understand what you say. I try (but sometimes fail, sorry) to respond to these things as if the person is being sincere and not engaging in a deception.

Rooster7, I think my statement mentioned "doubt", not certainty. I try (as I have done with all presidents) to ascribe characteristics of sincerity and honesty to them and their teams. Nixon surely failed, spectacularly. And therefore I doubt other aspects of him. But you are correct. I clearly didn't know what was in his mind, nor can I possibly understand his motives. I lived through Nixon and now I merely remember him and read his tape transcripts (and now Kissinger's). And in his words and actions, I see deceptions. Don't you?

Ditto (sorry NJ) Bush.

It has occured to me, though, that applying your standard to others, including 'the likes of' Al Gore, that you also have little means of judging them with the certainty with which you seem to speak.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Would Al Gore have been the worst President? I am not sure. He did invent the Internet, no lie. I can't seem to bring myself to picture him in the White House. He appeared to me to always make choices that looked correct but turned out wrong for some reason. I voted for him not because I thought he was the best person but because GWB was so much less. I respect Al Gore because I know that his heart is in the right place.

 

I have to give GWB credit for trying. I am not in agreement with some of his lies and some of his corporate policies and policy reversals. I am still glad that he is there. These are difficult times and there are few easy answers. I suppose I would be guilty of some of the same behaviors if given the opportunity. After viewing several Presidents during my lifetime, the job and expectations are bigger than the person. The shoes are too big to fill.

 

FB

[acco40]

President A sends hundreds of thousands of American youth to die in a foriegn war for debatable purposes and cares very deeply about the lives lost.

 

President B sends hundreds of thousands of American youth to die in a foriegn war for debatable purposes and does not care very deeply about the lives lost.

 

From a big picture perspective, I fail to see a difference in their ACTIONS. That is why, in responding to a post on this forum many months ago about a President that stated (cried?) that he cared very deeply about the loss of human life had no impact on me. Heck, Clinton was the master at "feeling your pain." How many funerals of fallen service men/women has the President attended? Zero. And seriously, I don't disparage him for that.

[Achilleez]

I agree acco40,

 

A President who lets 10 soldiers die and does not care is arguably preferable over a President who lets 1000 soldiers die and breaks down in tears over it. I don't think that any average citizen can judge the quality of a President, or any politician for that matter, based on the personal emotions/feelings that they express to the media. How do we know which are calculated publicity stunts and how many are sincere? No, the only possible judge of a leader's quality are their actions and the consequences following them. Does a Presedential sex scandal reflect weak moral character? Yes. Does it reflect on how well they can run a world superpower? Arguably yes, arguably no. In any case, if my Prime Minister could improve economic prosperity, negotiate peace in a hostile area, and work for civil rights, I wouldn't much care if he was a transvestite, a martian or a talking pig. I would still vote for him.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[firstpusk]

If only Arnold Ziffle could talk. ;^)

[scoutingagain]

I personally believe our current President cares deeply about our service men and women as does his opponent. However, I also believe the President has led us into the war and situation in Iraq based on at best, faulty intelligence provided by self serving exiles, and at worst fabricated intelligence provided by self serving exiles and some folks in the administration knew it was fabricated.

 

Regardless of how we got there, we are now in a position where we have to stay and finish the job. We cannot leave until there is a stable and secure government in Iraq that can defend itself and prevent the region from becomming another terrorist playland.

 

The question is what is the best way to go about doing this? Both Kerry and Bush want to bring in more international support and resources and their approach on the future of Iraq is not that different. I have come to the conclusion though, that the current administration lacks the credibility both here at home and with the international community to be able to pull this off effectively and they need to be held accountable for putting us into the situation to begin with when it wasn't necessary. I am not philosophically opposed to the idea of pre-emptive war in this day and age of weapons of mass destruction, but the threshold to engage in such a war was never present with Iraq, and this administration either knew that and didn't care or should have known before they committed men and women who volunteer to defend their country.

 

I live in John Kerry's home state. Have had the opportunity to vote for him several times and never have. He is frankly, a classic econonomic liberal who's approach to government clashes with my basic libertarian leanings. However, I have come to the conclusion that between the two of them, Kerry is in a better position to lead us out of Iraq with the help of the international community than Bush and his team of neocons are.

 

I mean no disrespect to either man as an individual. I believe both are in public service with a desire to do what they believe is best for the country. However the Bush team has lead us into an unnecessary war, given us record deficits, record high gas prices and into a position where much of the international community is reluctant to help us.

 

Which one is more trustworthy? As far as I'm concerned, neither. Both have proven to flip flop on issues or have sufficiently distorted their opponents position to leave me an acknowledged political cynic. I'm sure both consider it just politics as usual. That's a sad statement.

 

SA

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"A President who lets 10 soldiers die and does not care is arguably preferable over a President who lets 1000 soldiers die and breaks down in tears over it."

 

Really, what if the President who let the 10 soldiers die should have sent more soldiers and better support so civilians wouldn't get killed?

[acco40]

Better yet, conscript the whole population and no civilians will die!

[gsmom]

Here's an article directly related to this thread you all might find interesting:

 

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html