top 3 best
Clinton
Johnson
Kennedy

top 3 worst
Bush 43
Bush 41
Reagan

This is my list the "real" list.

THE BEST

1. PRESIDENT AL GORE

2. Clinton

3. Kennedy

THE WORST

1. THIEF BUSH {who I will never call president, he is not and never will be my president.}

2. Daddy Bush

3. The rest of the REPUBLICAN ones. :bad:

Limiting this poll to the last 50 years doesn't give us many choices since there were only 4 Dem. and 5 Repub. presidents during that time. I can't say that either LBJ or Carter was a great president, but one of them would have to be included in my list of 3 in the last 50 years, so I'm not playing this game unless it's extended to include presidents from the last 75 or 100 years. :tongue:

My Best list:

JFK - Gave us the new Frontier and saved the world during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Clinton - 8 Years of peace and prosperity.

Eisenhower - Understood the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex.

My Worst list:

W - Need I say more.

Nixon - Could have been great if not for his personal demons.

LBJ - Vietnam.

My best list:

Clinton: Unprecedented peace and proseperity; also had a great VP.
LBJ: Gave us headstart, civil rights, Medicare, Medicade, and admended SSI.
JFK: Gave the nation hope, civil rights, and leadership during the CMC.

Worst:

W
Reagan
Carter/Bush 41

All right, if I have to play by these rules, here goes:

Best:

Clinton (with the help of his VP gave us 8 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity)
JFK (although we'll never know if he'd have lived up to his potential, and his image is larger than life now because of the assassination)
Eisenhower (I can think of little bad to say about him other than that he belonged to the wrong party)

Worst:

Dubya (no explanation needed)
Reagan (all huff and bluff and no substance)
Nixon (crooked and arrogant, with little heart)


I just want to say here that, IMO, LBJ runs a close tie with Nixon as one of our worst presidents. LBJ enormously escalated the war in Vietnam. He expanded government with his Great Society programs to a point where it almost collapsed under its own weight. And he was about as political a politician as you'll ever find.

What is the big hangup on Eishenhower. He ranks on most lists in the bottom category of Presidents. Also, how can everyone bash LBJ for Vietnam and it was Kennedy who started it? LBJ gave us headstart, Medicare, and voting rights for blacks. If you can match that up with any other President from the past 50 years, I would like to see it. Yes, he was a ruthless politician, a prototype that our party could use now, but he had a genuine compassion for people.

Best in no order:

Clinton- greatest economic growth, peace, very likable
LBJ- civil rights
Kennedy- played all the right cards in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Worst in no order:

Reagan
Nixon
G Dubya

Yes, JFK started our involvement in Vietnam, but he sent people over there in an advisory capacity. Despite promises not to escalate the war, LBJ sent hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam to fight, not advise. And while his Great Society programs were lofty and had good intentions, they were enormously expensive during a time when America was hard at war. Look how critical everyone is of Bush for spending money like there's no tomorrow while we're spending billions in Iraq. During war time, a good president has to make hard choices. I don't think LBJ did a good job of that.

As for Eisenhower, he wasn't memorable other, perhaps, than the Interstate Highway System. But that was the problem with limiting this poll to the last 50 years, as I said earlier. I can't say LBJ was a great president, having lived through that time myself. And certainly Carter doesn't rank. So who else is there?

I still say LBJ's accomplishments outweight his cons. Yes, he did make mistakes in Vietnam, but he actually tried to make the situation work out. He also had a deep compassion for the troops that were fighting and were killed. I think he had one fo the best hearts of any Presidents ever.

Also, guess who is the main person behind the Interstate Highway System? Not Ike, but Albert Gore Sr.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw96l.htm
http://www.lsu.edu/lsupress/catalog/Fall20...ey_Senator.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/06/gore.senior.obit.01/
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htalla...10/mitchell.htm

Not that I have preference one way or another ... since we're still in the 50s in out U.S. History class :/ ... but LBJ was the only President in the past 40 years (other than Clinton) to preside over a surplus.



... that graph kind of makes you wonder why Republicans get credit for fiscal responsibility.

That's really why it gets me that people who balance budgets are not considered liberal. Howard Dean can change all that.

I do agree that LBJ was truly tortured by what was happening in Vietnam. But as I said before, as someone who lived through that awful era, I also know that he made decisions, time and time again, to send more and more troops to Vietnam, thereby escalating the war and making it harder for us to get out. He would not go down in history as the only president to have lost a war. That's some huge ego, to put that over the lives of thousands of Americans. Yes, I believe he felt a commitment to keep communism from advancing and to help South Korea. But I also think he made some very poor decisions, and he also was downright deceitful. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin. This is something I would have expected from the Bush administration. Claiming unprovoked attacks on American ships, Johnson went to the American people and cited the need to begin air strikes in Vietnam. He went to Congress to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed, giving him this power. But these incidents never did happen in the Gulf of Tonkin. The whole thing was either exaggerated or outrightly fabricated to get permission from Congress, and approval from the American people, to escalate the war. If Bush did something like that, you'd be all over him. Why do you accept it from LBJ?

LBJ is so different from Bush it isn't funny. I never have said I agree with his actions in Vietnam. However, unlike Bush and Co. he cared and mourned the loss of each soilder. He also didn't lie about why we were going into Vietnam. The mission was clear, unlike now, but as it grew on, it was an impossible task.

Plus, as I said, LBJ's actions in civil rights and social areas are unsurpassed and for that we should all be grateful.

That was exactly the point with the Gulf of Tonkin. He DID lie about why we were going into Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, yet he used it as a means to get permission to escalate the war.

I'm not arguing with you about his social record. He was committed to civil rights, and along with the war in Vietnam, he fought hard with the war on poverty.

But Vietnam wasn't a war we should've been involved in. No, LBJ didn't start our involvement there. And I truly believe he was honoring a commitment to South Korea, to the French, and to keeping Communism from spreading. But Bush is equally committed to keeping terrorism from spreading. Bush used false information to get Congress and the American people to back him in going into Iraq. LBJ used false information to get Congress and the American people to back him in going into Vietnam. There's little difference on that score.

I'm not saying LBJ is like Bush. But there are similarities. Both men firmly believed in their causes, and both men were willing to lie to get support to do what they felt they had to do. For all of LBJ's good in the social arena, I will never be able to overlook this fact.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was Congress' fault. There is no way they should have allotted a president that much power and leeway.

Here is what it entailed:

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Resolution: To Promote the Maintenance of International Peace and Secunty in Southeast Asia

Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and

Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these people should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way: Now, therefore, be it?

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

SEC.2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia.

Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

SEC. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

However, I don't believe LBJ lied per se about the GOT. Read this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0805-09.htm

However, another close LBJ aide, William Bundy, according to the same source, said the Tonkin Gulf incident was not engineered.

While the reasons for it either were unclear or false, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution cleared Congress on Aug. 7, 1964 - 414-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate.

History has seemed to coalesce around the belief that the second Tonkin Gulf incident, on Aug. 4, was a mistake, but not a charade.

It was not a "put-up job," claims Professor Edwin Moise, a Vietnam War expert at Clemson University.

As the LBJ Library tapes indicate, the Navy was not ready to launch a retaliatory strike Aug. 4 against North Vietnam, but it would have been if the event had been staged, Moise theorizes.

Professor David Crockett, a presidential scholar at Trinity University, calls the incident an accident, but says the greater problem was that Congress "rolled over" and gave LBJ what he wanted: "a virtual blank check to make war."

The irony, Crockett notes, is that LBJ painted Goldwater as a warmonger in the '64 campaign. A powerful but notorious LBJ TV ad featured a little girl picking daisies followed by the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

"LBJ campaigned that he wouldn't send American boys to die in Asian wars," says Crockett, who is only a year older than the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, "but he was actually doing it" by pushing the resolution through Congress.

However, I think once we got in, we didn't know what we had gotten ourselves into. To be fair, America had never encountered guerilla style warfare. LBJ also had hawks that were feeding him policies that were bad and incompetent. It was just unmanagable.

Howard Dean isn't a liberal though, but balanced budgets [b]does seem to be the new *thing* - for good reason. :)

"I don't mind being called a liberal. I just don't really think it's true."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

Second thought, it's not new at all since it goes all the way back to LBJ

Funny how Dems can keep an economy flowing through wars, FDR, LBJ, Johnson, and Clinton, yet when the Repubs are in, they act like they have to spend like drunken sailors. Bush always uses the excuse we are fighting a war, well, Georgie, so was all the Presidents listed above and all have proseperity and a economy that thrived.

Just face it Bush, you bring new meaning to the word FAILURE.

LBJ, consummate politician that he was, rammed this down Congress's throat with the help of Sec'y of Defense Robert McNamara and Sec'y of State Dean Rusk. Congress reacted out of fear and under pressure. Also, election year politics came into play. LBJ took a hard line defending his position against Rep. opponent Barry Goldwater and Dem. opponent Hubert Humphrey, who broke with the administration to reveal the classified, covert role that the U.S. Navy had been playing to support South Vietnamese sabotage raids against North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin. In other words, the attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin were not unprovoked, but this is the lie LBJ used to push his agenda through Congress. My point here, Chris, is that you cannot dump this all on Congress and hold Johnson innocent. To do so is to stick your head in the sand.

You hold Congress responsible for giving LBJ the power to escalate the Vietnam War, despite the fact that LBJ used faulty information. Then do you hold Congress solely responsible for giving Bush the power to go to war against Iraq by passing the Iraq Resolution? Most Senators (like Kerry) will tell you that they voted in good faith, that they trusted Bush to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before resorting to force. The truth is, most Senators (perhaps not including Kerry?) were concerned about the fact that it was an election year, and in that climate of fear of terrorism, didn't want to appear unpatriotic or soft on terrorism, thereby risking their reelection. So they jumped on the fear bandwagon and gave Bush the power to go to war in Iraq. The rest is history, as they say. Bush used false information to convince the public and Congress of the need to pass the Iraq Resolution. How is this different from what LBJ did? And if it isn't different, why does LBJ get a pass but Bush doesn't?

My TOP 3 BEST:
FDR......."barely elegible" at 50 years 1941-1945 ;)
JFK........dead by a GUNSHOT(I remember that day :( ) :dripple:
BILL CLINTON/AL GORE..........no doubt(Global Warming) :clap:


My TOP 3 WORST
NIXON...........he was an honest crook? :bad:
H.W. BUSH..........bad timing(poor guy) :blink:
G.W. BUSH..........hmmmm(what a putz) :?:


Have a nice day :) ...............Andrew Paul

Hey, Andrew, you cheated! You included FDR, who wasn't president in the last 50 years! That's what got me in trouble here, because I had to limit myself to presidents since Eisenhower. :lol:

Ha Ha :D Earthmother! Your right.........heck darn :P Hmmm? 1945 is 5 years off of 50 Years...........errrrrrrr :angry: Ok, well I guess I'll have to go with Eisenhower but I prefer FDR :clap:

How about the last 60 years instead :?: :good: :good: :good: :tongue:


Have a great evening.........................Andrew Paul

Well, I asked in the beginning to push this back to 75 or even 100 years so we could include the likes of FDR, etc., but no one was willing to give me that. <_<

Best last 50 years

a)LBJ-he did the civil rights. Kennedy would not have...he was given bad advice on Vietnam, and accepted the buck stopped there and did not run, when he could still have won the nomination. (He also could have come back when RFK died.)
b)Carter-peace in the middle east.
c)JFKennedy

Worst
a)41 all evil goes through him
b)43
c)Reagan-bankrupted America and let AIDS go on for years before noticing it was there


People who would have made a great President
a)Al Gore
b)Jerry Brown
c)Paul Wellstone

carter was a good man, but a sad president. I know people who's only Republican they voted for happened to be Reagan in 1980. However, they came to be sorry about that. I think Carter woulda done better than Reagan but was none the less horrible