jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) (05/14/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
George Washington 10
John Adams 9
Thomas Jefferson 8
James Madison 6
James Monroe 7
John Q Adams 8
Andrew Jackson 8
Martin Van Buren 5
William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
John Tyler 8
James K Polk 5
Zac. Taylor 4
Millard Filmore 6
Franklin Pierce 5
James Bucannon 3
Abraham Lincoln 10
Andrew Johnson 7
U.S. Grant 1
R B Hayes 7
James A Garfield 5 ????
Chester A Arthur 8
Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89
Benj. Harrison 4
Grover Cleavland 5
William McKinley 6
Theodore Roosevelt 8
William H Taft 8
Woodrow Wilson 7
Warren G Harding 1
Calvin Coolidge 5
Herbert Hoover 5
F D Roosevelt 9
Harry S Truman 8
D D Eisenhower(sp) 6
J F Kennedy 5
L B Johnson 5
Richard M Nixon 6
Gerald Ford 5
James E Carter 5
Ronald Regan 6
Please share your views on this subject.
Thanks Jack Stanleyspeter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (05/15/86)
In article <133@petrus.UUCP> jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: >I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be > >great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts. Gee! I'm so glad you asked. JACK STANLEY'S OPINION PETER OSGOOD'S OPINION >George Washington 10 only a 7, he was an elitist and allowed almost total elimination of the armed forces > >John Adams 9 5; a more effective political leader than GW but less receptive to interal needs and affairs; > >Thomas Jefferson 8 9; I would have given him a 10 but for his belief that only the "Wise, welborn and worthy" should govern. (that is a direct quote) > >James Madison 6 6 > >James Monroe 7 8; best president on foreign affairs to take office > >John Q Adams 8 4; very much overrated > >Andrew Jackson 8 8 > >Martin Van Buren 5 > >William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation > of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe? > --shortest term as president ever; 1 month >John Tyler 8 5; no good reason, just don't think he's worth an 8 > >James K Polk 5 5; maybe lower, expansionist, imperialist, little regard for those who served him > >Zac. Taylor 4 4; ex-generals make lousy Presidents > >Millard Filmore 6 4; was a "no nothing"; when put on the spot he and his party would say "we know nothing of this" > >Franklin Pierce 5 2; probably the worst president ever, can't name a single major innovation of his office; he hated slavery but hated the idea of of offending his party worse. > >James Buchanan 3 2; last of the Federalists, believed America is for Americans, not all those immigrants > >Abraham Lincoln 10 10; can't argue this one! > >Andrew Johnson 7 7; least understood president ever and most unfairly maligned > >U.S. Grant 1 1; ditto Taylor only Grant should have been impeached and then court marshalled!! > >R B Hayes 7 7 > >James A Garfield 5 ???? 4; compromise pres. over Grant, Blaine and Sherman. Didn't do much while he was in and then was assasinated > >Chester A Arthur 8 7; just don't think he's quite an 8 > >Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89 7 > >Benj. Harrison 4 7; another poorly understood pres.; was intrumental in getting major legis- lation thru congress; > >Grover Cleavland 5 5 > >William McKinley 6 6 > >Theodore Roosevelt 8 8 > >William H Taft 8 8 > >Woodrow Wilson 7 9; never really wanted to be pres. was dragged out of NJ by his party (democrat) because they felt they could manipulate him, they couldn't; one of our more intelligent presidents; > >Warren G Harding 1 4; aw cumon, ole Warren was that bad, he just liked to party a little and subscribed to patronage (patronage very common in that day; not necessarily bad either) > >Calvin Coolidge 5 5; good ole stone face, second only to Buster Keaton > >Herbert Hoover 5 7; he warned all the pol's that we were headed for trouble in '29 but no one would listen, but they sure knew who to blame; bad rap > >F D Roosevelt 9 9 maybe even a 10 > >Harry S Truman 8 10; if Barry Goldwater, a man who opposed Truman while in office, says he's a 10 I'm not going to argue > >D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 4; joke(s) of the day were "wind up an Ike doke and watch it do nothing"; "wind up an Ike doll and watch it throw out its back on the golf course"; a well deserved reputation > >J F Kennedy 5 8; social reformer of the 60's; look at Ronnie, he's still trying to take credit for things JFK started; RR also tries to compare himself to JFK > >L B Johnson 5 6; a little power hungry but was too frequently submarined by his own democatic congress (tried to end the Vietnam War by saturation bombing of N. Vietnam, this worked in Germany WWII, but he was stopped short by congress) > >Richard M Nixon 6 7; I really don't like this man but he was excellent when it came to making decisions of foreign policy, not bad with interal affirs either; had he not lied and disgraced his office he would probably go down as one of the best ever. > >Gerald Ford 5 6; restored honor to the office > >James E Carter 5 7; most honest pres. since Truman (this probably hurt him), poor choices for cabinet members was his undoing > >Ronald Regan 6 6; so far, but dropping; bad foreign policy; very very little regard for social programs; elitist; totally out of touch with the working class; If George Bush is elected President in '88 I'm moving to Canada! Although, at the rate RR is going that may be a moot point. ---peter osgood---
jnp@calmasd.UUCP (05/15/86)
In article <133@petrus.UUCP>, jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: > I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be > great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts. George Washington 10 I say 5, maybe 6. He wasn't a particularly great president, mostly famous for being 1st. Abraham Lincoln 10 6 at most, he delayed the construction of the trans-continental railroads, and was in favor of war with the south - rather than re-concil- liation. U.S. Grant 1 Right on target - a drunken illiterate. Grover Cleavland 5 8 - he was instrumental in what is now the national park system. Woodrow Wilson 7 4 - spent too much time on his league of nations not enough on domestic issues. F D Roosevelt 9 2 - please! James E Carter 5 2 - ditto -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.UUCP GE/Calma San Diego
figmo@atari.UUcp (Lynn Gold) (05/16/86)
In article <133@petrus.UUCP>, jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > > > > > I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be > > great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts. > > > George Washington 10 > > John Adams 9 > > Thomas Jefferson 8 Just curious as to why Jefferson gets lower than Adams. Jefferson was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. > > James Madison 6 > > James Monroe 7 > > John Q Adams 8 > > Andrew Jackson 8 > > Martin Van Buren 5 > > William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation > of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe? > > John Tyler 8 > > James K Polk 5 ONLY a 5???? Only one dissenting vote was cast in the electoral college against him; this was because the "dissenter" wanted Washington to be the only president to have been elected unanimously. I'd give the man an 8 or 9 at least! > > Zac. Taylor 4 > > Millard Filmore 6 > > Franklin Pierce 5 > > James Bucannon 3 > > Abraham Lincoln 10 Lincoln is overrated. He only abolished slavery in the SOUTHERN states. The northern states were "free" to have slaves (sounds like a contradiction of terms..."free slaves" :-) ). > > Andrew Johnson 7 Johnson deserves an 8. He wasn't popular because he was a southerner against slavery who stayed with the Union. > > U.S. Grant 1 > > R B Hayes 7 > > James A Garfield 5 ???? > > Chester A Arthur 8 > > Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89 > > Benj. Harrison 4 > > Grover Cleavland 5 > > William McKinley 6 > > Theodore Roosevelt 8 > > William H Taft 8 > > Woodrow Wilson 7 > > Warren G Harding 1 > > Calvin Coolidge 5 Give the guy a 6; he was popular in his time. Nothing happened, so he did nothing. :-) > > Herbert Hoover 5 > > F D Roosevelt 9 You give Lincoln a 10 and FDR only a 9??? FDR had the chance to turn our country into a dictatorship (some sort of state-of-emergency thing) and decided not to. The man got us out of the Great Depression. > > Harry S Truman 8 Give the man a 9. He had a tough (and unpopular) job to do, and he did it. FDR was not an easy act to follow, and jumping in during WWII wasn't an easy task. > > D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 Too high for a man who had never voted in his life before his own election. This was a man who encouraged Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon and the "witch hunts" of the '50's. This is the man whose morality inspires Jerry Falwell and his ilk. I'd give him a 2 at best. > > J F Kennedy 5 Give JFK a 7. He screwed up Bay of Pigs, but he started special education and civil rights programs. He was also a supporter of the space program and of physical fitness. The man was ahead of his time. > > L B Johnson 5 5????? YOU rate EISENHOWER better than LBJ????? This man continued JFK's work, especially in the areas of civil rights and the space program. He'd get a 9 if he hadn't escalated Vietnam; for that, I'd knock him to a 7 or 8. > > Richard M Nixon 6 I'd give him a 4. Nixon was excellent in foreign policy matters, but really screwed up on the home front. Nixon had a study done on the same little piece of law that FDR chose not to implement to see how feasible it was to take over the country. Had it not been for that study I'd have given him a 5. > > Gerald Ford 5 > > James E Carter 5 > > Ronald Regan 6 It's Ronald REAGAN, and I'd give him a 4. He's screwed up our foreign policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.). I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular. > --Lynn -- Atari Corp. 1196 Borregas Ave. UUCP: vecpyr!atari!figmo Sunnyvale, CA ARPA: Lynn%PANDA@SUMEX-AIM (408) 745-2930 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The opinions represented in this posting are mine. Any resemblance | | between these and my employer's opinions is purely coincidental. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) (05/16/86)
In article <513@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> speter@trillian.UUCP (Peter Osgood) writes: >In article <133@petrus.UUCP> jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: > >>I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be >> >>great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts. > >Gee! I'm so glad you asked. > >JACK STANLEY'S OPINION PETER OSGOOD'S OPINION >>Thomas Jefferson 8 9; I would have given him a 10 > but for his belief that only the > "Wise, welborn and worthy" should > govern. (that is a direct quote) 7 - A great exponent of democracy, but hypocritical for owning slaves. >>F D Roosevelt 9 9 maybe even a 10 5 - Knew of and tacitly encouraged the impending bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. War criminal -- ordered the fire bombing of German cities which had no significant military value. >>Harry S Truman 8 10; if Barry Goldwater, a man who opposed > Truman while in office, says he's a 10 > I'm not going to argue 1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to surrender. >>D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 4; joke(s) of the day were "wind up > an Ike doke and watch it do nothing"; > "wind up an Ike doll and watch it > throw out its back on the golf course"; > a well deserved reputation 3 - Tacitly encouraged McCarthy for much of his reign, but recognized the dangers of the military-industrial complex, just as he was unable to do anything about it. >>J F Kennedy 5 8; social reformer of the 60's; look > at Ronnie, he's still trying to take > credit for things JFK started; RR also > tries to compare himself to JFK 7 - Idealist that got shafted by the CIA/military intelligence establishment -- Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, possibly his own assassination >>L B Johnson 5 6; a little power hungry but was too > frequently submarined by his own > democatic congress (tried to end the > Vietnam War by saturation bombing of > N. Vietnam, this worked in Germany > WWII, but he was stopped short by > congress) 1 - War criminal, mass murderer -- escalated the Vietnam War. >>Richard M Nixon 6 7; I really don't like this man but > he was excellent when it came to making > decisions of foreign policy, not bad > with interal affirs either; had he not > lied and disgraced his office he would > probably go down as one of the best ever. 1 - Caught lying, war criminal, mass murderer -- needlessly extended the Vietnam War. >>Gerald Ford 5 6; restored honor to the office 1 - Pardoned a lier, crook & mass murderer for all unnamed crimes while committe in office. Even the unjustly convicted don't get pardons like this. >>Ronald Regan 6 6; so far, but dropping; bad foreign > policy; very very little regard for > social programs; elitist; totally > out of touch with the working class; 2 - Basically an honest dupe of the military industrial establishment. His cabinet is filled with crooks and people out for their own interest. Low intelligence (can only remember anecdotes, not facts, hence his superior acting ability). michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu michael%ucbiris@berkeley.arpa {arizona|decwrl|decvax|hplabs|ihnp4|sun}!ucbvax!ucbiris!michael
nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) (05/17/86)
It apears that the longer a president has been out of office the better the score he gets. My guess is that time rounds off the rough edges from our memories and gives historians and trivia hunters a chance to discover the sorts of "interesting" facts and anecdotes that make a "great man" out of a politician. One thing about placing our presidents on a scale, the only thing in common amongst them is their title. The job functions related to the presidential office have changed enough over the years that comparing Reagan to Washington is very difficult. I would guess we are putting apples and orranges on the same scale with this excercise. On the other hand, we could evaluate each one as an individual, based only on what he acomplished in his life-time with special accent on what there was that needed acomplishing in that time frame. -- Michael Galassi, Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR ..!tektronix!reed!percival!nerd
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (05/18/86)
In article <133@petrus.UUCP> jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: > >I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. > >George Washington 10 [many many years are deleted here, for the sake of brevity] >J F Kennedy 5 >L B Johnson 5 >Richard M Nixon 6 >Gerald Ford 5 >James E Carter 5 >Ronald Regan 6 > Please share your views on this subject. > Well, you asked for it. How anyone in his right mind can contend that Reagan and Nixon were better presidents than Kennedy is beyond me. I would rate these more as: JFK 7 LBJ 6 RMN 3 Ford 5 Carter 5 Reagan 2 -- "If you write it down, people will believe it" Steve "Blore" Howard, Exorcist to the Stars {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
good@pixar (If your dog goes off in another room is it because of explosives?) (05/18/86)
In article <709@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> michael@ucbiris.UUCP (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: >>>Harry S Truman >1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary >atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to >surrender. Yeah, right. They were about to surrender, all right. That's why it took two bombs. They thought we had used up the world supply of weapons-grade Uranium with the first bomb, so they decided not to surrender. They didn't count on Plutonium. Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those bombs. -- --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
ln63soi@sdcc7.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <146@percival.UUCP> nerd@percival.UUCP (Michael Galassi) writes: >It apears that the longer a president has been out of office the better >the score he gets. My guess is that time rounds off the rough edges from >our memories and gives historians and trivia hunters a chance to discover >the sorts of "interesting" facts and anecdotes that make a "great man" out >of a politician. Another observation I'll add is that presidents who die in office generally receive good ratings. Especially those who die suddenly or are assassinated. Witness Lincoln, JFK, and FDR. All had a number of severe problems during their administrations, yet after they died they became heros. Sort of a "halo-effect": people don't like to say bad things about the newly dead. Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63soi U. C. San Diego
mahoney@dec-bartok.UUCP (05/19/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 15-MAY-1986 22:40--------------------- >> James K Polk 5 >ONLY a 5???? Only one dissenting vote was cast in the electoral >college against him; this was because the "dissenter" wanted >Washington to be the only president to have been elected unanimously. This was James Monroe not James Polk. James Polk was the First dark horse president. It was during the Era of Good Feeling. The US was riding high we had just semi-won a war with England and our economy was going like gang- busters. The bigger problem was the fact that the Federalist party was following apart there was no real competition for James Monroe. >--Lynn Brian Mahoney
mahoney@dec-bartok.UUCP (05/19/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 14-MAY-1986 18:06---------------------
My rating is in column 2
I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I thing it would be
great ( That should be I THINK) to have opposing views on my thoughts.
George Washington 10 10 ;Unlike someone in another posting said it has
nothing to do with his being first. The fact
of things he accomplished and would not allow
is why I rate him so high.
John Adams 9 5 ;He was mediocre at worst or best.
Thomas Jefferson 8 8 ;Though as a political philospher I would rate
him much higher
James Madison 6 6
James Monroe 7 4 ;Someone mentioned his great foriegn policy
which actually was the work of his Seceratery
of State JQ Adams
John Q Adams 8 5
Andrew Jackson 8 5 One of the more dangerous presidents. He
tended to ignore the constitution when ever
he felt like it.
Martin Van Buren 5 5
William H Harrison can't even guess, but he was pretty much a creation
of the Wig party, so the rating would have been low maybe?
John Tyler 8 7
James K Polk 5 4
Zac. Taylor 4 4
Millard Filmore 6 4
Franklin Pierce 5 3
James Bucannon 3 6
Abraham Lincoln 10 10
Andrew Johnson 7 7 ;His biggest problem was he did not know how
to compromise
U.S. Grant 1 1 ;decent general terrible president.
R B Hayes 7 5 ;he stole the election
James A Garfield 5 ???? 5
Chester A Arthur 8 8
Grover Cleavland 7 1885-89 7
Benj. Harrison 4 3 ;He was to much of a wimp. He bowed to
congressional pressure without so much as a
wimper
Grover Cleavland 5 7
William McKinley 6 5
Theodore Roosevelt 8 6
William H Taft 8 6
Woodrow Wilson 7 7
Warren G Harding 1 1
Calvin Coolidge 5 5
Herbert Hoover 5 6 ;He at least attempted to accomplish stuff
unlike his predecessor
F D Roosevelt 9 9
Harry S Truman 8 8
D D Eisenhower(sp) 6 7
J F Kennedy 5 5
L B Johnson 5 4 ;I am a liberal but personally the Vietnam
War and the Great Society were both great
failures
Richard M Nixon 6 1 ;for no other reason then he disgraced the
office of the President. I personally do
not think he deserves any higher.
Gerald Ford 5 6 ;I think he was the soothing type of person
the country needed after Nixon.
James E Carter 5 7; I like Jimmy and feel he Ford got stuck with a
mess created by Kennedy Johnson and Nixon.
Mainly though the fault lies with Jonson and
Nixon.
Ronald Regan 6 8 and 3 ;The eight is for the ability to use the
office the 3 for the policies he has
followed.
Please share your views on this subject.
Thanks Jack Stanley
Well here are my views.
Brian Mahoneydragheb@isis.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <133@petrus.UUCP> jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: > >George Washington 10 ; must be because he was first > >F D Roosevelt 9 ; if you give him a nine, then why do you rate Reagan as a six? Reagan is doing the same thing...taking drastic measures to get the country back on its feet again after some president (I won't mention his name) took us into the toilet (ok. ok. it was Carter, but you forced me to tell!) (and look at the state of the economy: interest rates, inflation, etc.) > >Richard M Nixon 6 ; until Reagan, the last of the 'tough' president's. I'd give him a 7 > >Gerald Ford 5 ; The only pres. to drop a phone on his own head...I'd give him a 3. > >James E Carter 5 ; The biggest jerk in office. You thought Nixon was good with foreign policy? Well Carter single handidly destroyed our image with the entire world. I'd give him a negative 6. > >Ronald Regan 6 ; Well, I like Ronnie, so I will give him a 9 (I don't like dishing out undeserved 10's...kind of like Mary Lou Retton) The reason I think Reagan is really good is the fact that he is showing the world that the U.S. is sick of being pushed around. You might think that the 'home front' is not being too well taken care of, but I think if you look at the points I mentioned above, we are not that bad off over all. (Many college students will complain about lack of funding etc. well, let me tell you, if you need it, then it is there...that is how I am going through this place!...and if you remember all the talk about students defaulting on student loans, they are all from Carter's term (that, I can't explain) ). -- "Joel, get off the babysitter!" -- Risky Business (^^^^^^) o o (The above are your opinions, < you just don't know it yet :-) |_____| ------> The Oprdrt <------ UUCP: {hplabs, seismo}!hao!isis!dragheb
robertv@tekla.UUCP (Robert Vetter) (05/21/86)
In article <2784@pixar.pixar> good@pixar.UUCP (If your dog goes off in another room is it because of explosives?) writes: >In article <709@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> michael@ucbiris.UUCP (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: > >>>>Harry S Truman >>1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary >>atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to >>surrender. > >Yeah, right. They were about to surrender, all right. That's why it took two >bombs. They thought we had used up the world supply of weapons-grade Uranium >with the first bomb, so they decided not to surrender. They didn't count on >Plutonium. > >Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those >bombs. >-- > --Craig > ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good My understanding was that he wanted to defeat Japan before the Russians got into the fray. This was to avoid another German-like split or even Russian control. In any case, the decision probably DID save lives, including Russian ones. Rob Vetter (503) 629-1291 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (05/21/86)
In article <278@atari.UUcp> figmo@atari.UUcp (Lynn Gold) writes: >In article <133@petrus.UUCP>, jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: >> I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. And I think it would be >> great to have opposing views on my thoughts. I'll stick to modern ones. >> J F Kennedy 5 >Give JFK a 7. He screwed up Bay of Pigs, but he started special >education and civil rights programs. He was also a supporter of the >space program and of physical fitness. The man was ahead of his time. 0 Took what he assessed as a "1/3 to 1/2 chance of a nuclear war" to defend the principle that America could put missiles on the Soviet Union's borders but not vice versa. >> >> L B Johnson 5 >5????? YOU rate EISENHOWER better than LBJ????? This man continued >JFK's work, especially in the areas of civil rights and the space >program. He'd get a 9 if he hadn't escalated Vietnam; for that, I'd >knock him to a 7 or 8. 0 How many people were slaughtered in Vietnam? >> Richard M Nixon 6 >I'd give him a 4. Nixon was excellent in foreign policy matters, but >really screwed up on the home front. Nixon had a study done on the >same little piece of law that FDR chose not to implement to see how >feasible it was to take over the country. Had it not been for that >study I'd have given him a 5. 0 Vietnam continued. >> Gerald Ford 5 3 I can't think of any major atrocities committed by this man. >> James E Carter 5 8 The one decent human being to become U.S. president since 1945. The only one to attempt (however patchily) to formulate a moral foreign policy. >> >> Ronald Regan 6 >It's Ronald REAGAN, and I'd give him a 4. He's screwed up our foreign >policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took >office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more >college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.). >I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular. 0 In foreign policy an evil and dangerous warmonger; domestically an enemy of the poor and of what's left of America's democratic tradition.
ayers@ecn-pc.UUCP (Gregory M Ayers) (05/21/86)
In article <1531@udenva.UUCP> showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) writes: >In article <133@petrus.UUCP> jfs@petrus.UUCP (Jack Stanley) writes: >> >>I will rate each president with a 1 to 10. >> >>George Washington 10 >[many many years are deleted here, for the sake of brevity] >>J F Kennedy 5 >>L B Johnson 5 >>Richard M Nixon 6 >>Gerald Ford 5 >>James E Carter 5 >>Ronald Regan 6 >> Please share your views on this subject. >> > Well, you asked for it. How anyone in his right mind can contend that >Reagan and Nixon were better presidents than Kennedy is beyond me. I would >rate these more as: > >JFK 7 >LBJ 6 >RMN 3 >Ford 5 >Carter 5 >Reagan 2 > >-- > >"If you write it down, people will believe it" > >Steve "Blore" Howard, Exorcist to the Stars > {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard >or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard It is impossible for me to consider Nixon a better president than Reagan, let alone consider Carter even rating more than 0. Here is the way I see it : JFK 7 LBJ 2 RMN 3 the last two recieve low ratings due to shady dealings. Ford 7 didn't do much, but was honest and restored some trust in the white house. Carter 0 to -1 the man was and still is incompetent Reagan 8 the man has restored the USA to respectibility but is slightly too heavy handed when it comes to defense. I can make no statements beyond these few presidents, since I was not living previous to JFK and Bush has yet to be elected, although that day is comming SOON. Greg Ayers Independent and Slightly Conservative Minded Political Supporter Purdue University
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/21/86)
> > In article <709@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> michael@ucbiris.UUCP (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: > >>>>Harry S Truman >>1 - Low intelligence, war criminal, mass murderer. He ordered the unnecessary >>atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities, just as the Japanese were about to >>surrender. > > Yeah, right. They were about to surrender, all right. That's why it took two > bombs. They thought we had used up the world supply of weapons-grade Uranium > with the first bomb, so they decided not to surrender. They didn't count on > Plutonium. > > Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those > bombs. > > -- > --Craig A friend of mine has two histories of World War II, both of which say that near the end of the war, the Japanese sent messages to Stalin asking that he tell Truman that they were willing to surrender on the condition that they be allowed to keep their emperor. Stalin delayed in sending this message to Truman, because he wanted to get involved in the Asian war. However, the U.S. had been reading the Japanese codes, and knew what the Japanese had asked Stalin to do. Stalin eventually relented and told Truman, who had to pretend that he didn't already know. The U.S. demanded unconditional surrender, which the Japanese would not accept. The final inducement was the dropping of the atomic bombs. After the surrender, the U.S. allowed Japanese to keep their emperor anyway. If all this is true, the atomic bombs did nothing to save lives or shorten the war. If anyone is interested, I will post the bibliographic info and the relevant paragraphs from the two books. If I could find my photocopies I would post it in this article, but alas! -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
zonker@ihlpf.UUCP (Tom Harris) (05/21/86)
The main problem I see with this article is that the poster didn't comment on his criteria for rating the presidents. My personal criteria for rating is based upon a mixture of how well did they fufilled the ideals upon which this country was based combined with a rating of their ability in the office. I have omitted presidents where I have no opinion. idealism performance George Washington 5 10 John Adams 3 9 Thomas Jefferson 10 9 James Monroe 10 8 Andrew Jackson 0 2 Abraham Lincoln 4 10 Jefferson Davis 10 4 Andrew Johnson 8 4 U.S. Grant 4 1 Theodore Roosevelt 8 10 Woodrow Wilson 7 4 F D Roosevelt 7 10+ Harry S Truman 6 8 D D Eisenhower 4 4 J F Kennedy 10 7 L B Johnson 5 8 Richard M Nixon 0 8 Gerald Ford 8 4 James E Carter 8 6 Ronald Regan 2 8 Some notes: Washington - was a politician and got where he did mainly via ambition and the ruthless use of others. Remember he controlled the writting of a constitution which would allow this country to be run as a facist state. He gets a 10 for performance for defining the duties of the office. Jefferson - as far as I am concerned defined the political ideals on which this country was based. The on going duel between him and Adams fore-shadows the underlying problems with our governement structure which eventually causes the ACW. Jackson - he had no ideals and performed on the premise that to the victor goes the spoils. Lincoln - performed well under the most harrowing circumstances, learned from his mistakes. Loses on idealism for changing why the ACW was fought from states rights to slavery and his opinions on what should be done with the freed slaves. Davis - Couldn't resist adding him. Fought the war based on his ideology of freedom. Loses on performance for allowing Lee to take command of the ANV instead of remaining Chief of Staff and for firing the first shot. T. Roosevelt - Do what you can with what you have where you are. The world will never love us, but we can make them respect us. Probably one of the most underrated presidents historically. He defines the ideal 20th century American in my opinion. (Note: many people have catagorized him as an imperialist, but no territory was annexed by the U.S. during his term. The Panama CZ, etc. are rented!) F. Roosevelt - Outperformed every other president. Extra points for maintaining a strong presence, but staying out of WWII until we were attacked. Kennedy - performace would be higher, but his death forstalled enactment during his term of most of the legislation he had been working for. Johnson - performance would be lower, but he benfited from Kennedy's programs. Regan - I strongly suspect that I have overrated Regan's Idealism because his ideals are a perversion of those which our country was based (he is trying to push us back to an earlier moral position, feeling that we were a strong nation because of our morals then, not in spite of them). Had he been the first president I am sure he would have found a way to squash the Bill of Rights. His idealism would be higher had he been president 100 years ago, but then most of the issues he is he is trying to push were de facto then. Never the less, he has performed strongly in the office and had a major effect on national pride.
daver@sci.UUCP (05/22/86)
> Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those > bombs. > Did he? Someone told me (this is net.rumor, right? so i can use third+ hand sources) that the Japanese had surrendered between the dropping of the first bomb and the dropping of the second. And that, since they no longer had an embassy in the states, they used their friends and ours, the Soviets, to transmit their surrender. And that the Soviets delayed telling Washington about the surrender until after the second bomb had been dropped. david rickel cae780!weitek!sci!daver
dzoey@umd5.UUCP (Joe Herman) (05/22/86)
[ Red White and Blue ] Well, finals are over (almost) so I figure I'll post my opinions. I didn't include any president who's administration I couldn't remember anything about. As usual, all of this is my own opinion and doesn't represent the University, IBM, or anyone else. George Washington 8 Was able to hold this country together during very tough times. Thomas Jefferson 9 The man was incredible. He not only helped the country grow, but was also able to get along with congress. How many presidents can claim that? James Monroe 7 Was able to talk the U.S. into a respectable foreign policy. Would have been higher he was sort of bland on the home front. Andrew Jackson 5 Too much disregard for the constitution. The only good thing was he shook up the Federal establisment enough to start some reforms. Probably the worst president the Indians ever dealt with. Abraham Lincoln 9 I can't really give him a 10. His choice in generals to lead the civil war was abysmal. Caused the dang thing to last an extra year. U.S. Grant 1 Generals make lousy politicians. Was elected because of his war record, not beliefs. James A Garfield 6 I don't know nationally, but because of his support, Washington D.C. was transformed from a smelly southern town into a southern town with an underground sewer system and predecessors to "national parks." Grover Cleavland 8 Was a big help in building an industrial America. Theodore Roosevelt 8 Bully for him. Incredible politician. Woodrow Wilson 7 Would have been higher except that he was an idealist. Presidents can't afford to be idealists. Leave that to universities :-) Herbert Hoover 6 He knew trouble was coming but was not able enough to do anything about it. Unfortunately neither was the legislative branch at that time. F D Roosevelt 10 The man could do anything. Even with his handicap he was popular with the people. His policies were some of the wisest this country has ever known. And he accomplished all this with a hostile congress. Harry S Truman 9 It took guts to follow an act like Roosevelt's. Harry accomplished many things during his administration (such as integrating the army) and set foreign policy guidelines that are followed even today. (the containment policy). The country was lucky to have two very able presidents in a row. D D Eisenhower 5 Ike didn't do much. He gets a 5 because He kept the economy from dying completely in the 50's. J F Kennedy 9 I know I said presidents can't afford to be idealists, but JFK was able to implement his ideas and they actually worked. The peace corps was probably the best thing that the U.S. has every given the third world. I think he was the fastest learner of all the presidents. He really learned from his mistakes. L B Johnson 4 LBJ was a product of his generation. He was part of the Good-ole-boy network and really didn't understand what the 'crazed youth' was trying to tell him. He also picked incredibly bad advisors. Richard M Nixon 4 Nixon discraced the office he served. Because of him, the U.S. suffered what became known as a 'crisis of confidence'. He destroyed many peoples belief in the government. He had an o.k. foreign policy, but probably had the worst domestic policy of any president to date. Gerald Ford 5 Was uncontroversial and source of some of the best material done by Chevy Chase. James E Carter 7 Would have been a wonderful president if he hadn't succeeded in alienating the whole of the Washington power structure. He also was not a leader. Probably the hardest worker since Roosevelt, and the most honest politician ever, he found that he had no political pull when he needed to get things done. This caused him to seem ineffectual. In reality he's had some of the best economic ideas since the 50's. That and a lot of bad luck. Ronald Regan 6 The antithesis of Jimmy Carter, Reagan probably works the least of any president this century. He is weak intellectually and doesn't fully understand the office he occupies. However, he is probably the best politician since Roosevelt. He knows his limitations and listens to his advisors. He also has a good relationship with the senate and is good at seeing things through. So far he rates a 7. He loses one more point for his polarizing the U.S. into the 'HAVES' and 'HAVE NOTS' and his disregard for environmental issues. Personally, I don't see any future candidate with as much charisma as Reagan. Also, I'm pretty sure that his charm and thus the mass support of the republican party will disappear when he leaves office. '88 should be an interesting election. -- Joe DZOEY@UMD5.UMD.EDU seismo!umd5.umd.edu!dzoey HERMAN@UMDD.BITNET -- "Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."
cracraft@pyrla.UUCP (05/25/86)
I couldn't resist this one. The author of the revised ratings of our presidents has myopia. Either that or astigmatism. > idealism performance > F D Roosevelt 7 10+ > Ronald Reagan 2 8 > Roosevelt given a 10+ for performance??? I have listened year after year to Roosevelt being deified. The man has almost the reputation of a god in this country. I won't bore you with citing statistics. First, he came into office at a crucial time (the time immediately surrounding the Great Depression). Second, his NEW DEAL did *NOT* solve our problems during the Great Depression. In fact, after 10 long hard years of the Great Depression, the tragedy showed almost no signs of easing with or without the New Deal. It was a monster Depression. Not even all of economist Keynes deficit spending (on which the New Deal and most of Roosevelt's philosophy was based) could get us out of the Depression. So, the conclusion is that Roosevelt did not get us out of the Depression. What did? World War II did! The gearing up of fantastically high production levels to meet the demands of supplying troops abroad was what did it. I admit that Roosevelt had a certain charisma, but we must face facts. He almost destroyed this country *permanently* and *economically* by doing a complete brain-surgery of the role of our government. Roosevelt had intended and publically stated that he would lift many of the New Deal programs. However, he died prematurely and was unable to lift them. As a result, we were saddled with increased deficit spending is now at a really obscene level (with the help of a few wars). In my humble opinion, Keynes and his ugly philosophy embodied in the programs of the New Deal, have done severe damage to our capability as a nation to compete internationally and only recently, with Japan and some other countries leapfrogging us economically, has this been shown. I don't mean to digress, but the Roosevelt/Keynes brotherhood has been in place for 50 years. Only recently, with the advent of the supply-siders, who understand the many good points of *both* the monetarists and classical-economists as well as some of the major *reasonable* points of Keynes economic theory, only now, have we begun to see some major shifts in the way our government deals with the country. The new right on which Reagan bases his philosophy on includes Arthur Laffer and George Gilder. In my opinion, these men are infinitely more stable both in their personal lives, their personalities, as well as their economic theories than Keynes ever demonstrated even the remotest capacity to reach. I am here referring to the fact that Keynes was a very troubled man, operating during a time when the Great Depression was wiping out lives, let alone pocketbooks. We are well aware of what happens when you put such personality structures into such situations. They come up with the most outlandish, insane theories, that may look rigorous and may even have some reasonable points, but which ultimately are born out of the desperation of the times. We are very fortunate to have had 8 years of a monetarist/supply-sider president such as Reagan. What he has done for us is *extremely* important, and we honestly need another 8 years of someone with similar *economic* views. (I will not discuss his religious or many incursions into our personal lives which are substantial, although we should all acknowledge that the idea of getting the government off the people's backs economically should include *everything* (both economically and in our personal lives) is one of the major contradictions of modern convservativism.) >F. Roosevelt - Outperformed every other president. Extra points for >maintaining a strong presence, but staying out of WWII until we >were attacked. Nonsense. See above. >Reagan - I strongly suspect that I have overrated Regan's Idealism >because his ideals are a perversion of those which our country was >based (he is trying to push us back to an earlier moral position, >feeling that we were a strong nation because of our morals then, >not in spite of them). Had he been the first president I am sure >he would have found a way to squash the Bill of Rights. His >idealism would be higher had he been president 100 years ago, but >then most of the issues he is he is trying to push were de facto then. >Never the less, he has performed strongly in the office and had a major >effect on national pride. You are no doubt here referring to his incursions into our personal lives. I agree. The major contradiction of modern conservativism is that it emphasizes getting government out of the person's pocketbook but into their bedroom and church/synagogue. This major contradiction has caused many young people to have a tough time swallowing conservativism as a political philosophy. I myself lean towards Libertarian philosophy which emphasizes getting the government out of everything as much as possible, maintaining only a skeleton government (at most) for doing absolutely crucial things. However, I realize they could never be elected to offices I would want them in, so I vote Republican because the economic philosophy of that party means a lot to how much I can take home out of my paycheck every two weeks and how I am going to provide for myself decades from now. I abhor them for what they have done with intruding on our personal lives, but I have to stick with the bottom line and the bottom line includes dollars and *sense*. Finally, the Reagan ERTA tax cut enacted in the early 1980's was one of the most significant reforms of government policy for decades. If the current Bell-Packwood bill or Senate bill regarding tax policy goes through, we will have something very close to a flat tax (two brackets; 15% & 27% with many deductions eliminated). If this goes through, which I am praying it does, it will be probably the most major reform since the New Deal. I think it would be a superb way for Reagan to "close out" his tenure as our President and I am really praying that it passes by the end of this year or sometime in 1987. Stuart
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/28/86)
In article <1325@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes: >>> Ronald Regan 6 >>It's Ronald REAGAN, and I'd give him a 4. He's screwed up our foreign >>policy (we got along with foreign powers much better before he took >>office than we do now), he's screwed up our domestic affairs (no more >>college loans, increased unemployment, more people on welfare, etc.). >>I'd give him a 3 except that for some reason he's popular. > >0 In foreign policy an evil and dangerous warmonger; domestically an > enemy of the poor and of what's left of America's democratic > tradition. "evil and dangerous warmonger" and "enemy of the poor" are rather standard phrases applied to RR. However, being an "enemy ... of what's left of America's democratic tradition" is a new one. Can we have some elaboration on this? J.B. Robinson
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (06/10/86)
I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do.
You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually
non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out
of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember
12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price
controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize
relations with China, which seems like a good idea from political and
ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those
things, rather than his political actions.
--
-bill davidsen
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
\
unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
/
sixhub ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (06/12/86)
In article <783@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: >I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do. >You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually >non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out >of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember >12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price >controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize >relations with China, which seems like a good idea from political and >ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those >things, rather than his political actions. > -bill davidsen You could be right, of course. History has a selective memory, and will remember only the things that it chooses to. However, it seems to me that writing off his criminality and sleaze as merely "political actions" is not too likely. The government of the country is supposedly free and open, and he tried to subvert that very fundamental cornerstone. What happens to freedom and balance of power inside the US is probably of more insterest (it certainly *should* be of more interest) than foreign policy or economic gains. I suspect he will be most remembered as the person who had to resign from office due to corruption, and the specifics will probably go by the wayside. Somehow that seems more like a long-lived historical fact than China or inflation (which mostly ended, as it usually does, with no thanks to the President, and for which Nixon, like every other President who had the opportunity, took credit because it was available). Ken Arnold
larryb@bcsaic.UUCP (larry baum) (06/14/86)
In article <783@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > >I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do. >You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually >non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out >of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember >12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price >controls. Those wage and price controls were completely mishandled. He instituted them at the worst possible moment and removed them at another ill-timed moment. The result was the horrendous inflation that ruined both Ford and Carter's presidency (not to mention the effects on the rest of the world.)
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (06/20/86)
In article <9882@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) writes: >In article <783@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: >>I think that history will have a better view of Nixon than you guys do. >>You're judging him as a person (and his honesty was virtually >>non-existant), however, he took some major steps to get the country out >>of trouble. When inflation got completely out of hand (I remember >>12%-15% raises that didn't seem to keep up) he got wage and price >>controls. His strong anti communist record allowed him to normalize When Nixon clamped on wage and price controls, the inflation rate was a whopping, frightening FOUR percent! When they were removed, it took right back off. There is no evidence that wage and price controls then did any good, or ever do any good regarding inflation. >>relations with China, which seems like a good idea from political and >>ecconomic standpoints. I believe that he will be measured by those >>things, rather than his political actions. This should be at least partly true. Nixon seemed pretty smart at international strategy (and still is). His work there was certainly better than Johnson (prior) & Carter (a bit after). However, you can be sure that Watergate will be remembered for a long time simply because it was such an unprecedented event in US History. -- John Moore (NJ7E) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!mot!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!mot!anasazi!john mot!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (06/24/86)
>This should be at least partly true. Nixon seemed pretty smart at >international strategy (and still is). His work there was certainly Nixon was elected on the basis of a promise to the American people to end the war in Vietnam... he said he had a plan, but couldn't reveal it, and so on. When he got into office, he got himself Kissinger, who had been Rockefeller's foreign policy adviser and with whom he could not have had "planning" sessions. Between the two of them, they carried on the war for four more years, got more Americans killed than before, bombed everything in sight, etc. "Pretty smart"! Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos