C-SPAN ranks the Presidents

[StorminNorman]

Neither of those (especillay Teddy) have received the attention Reagan has been lauded in recent. The current GOP has used Reagan nonstop as the benchmark for what the GOP should be, and it hurts them because it makes them more out of touch than they really are.

Plus, Reagan advocated smaller government, something which the current GOP has no concern for.

Reagan gets more attention because he is the most recent. He was an enormously popular figure that almost everyone who votes today still remembers - thats something he has that JFK, TR, FDR, and HST don't have going for them.

Also, Reagan is not unlike the current GOP on the subject of smaller government. Both Reagan and the GOP talk about reducing government, but both have no problems increasing it.

 

[The Chairman]

Reagan gets more attention because he is the most recent. He was an enormously popular figure that almost everyone who votes today still remembers - thats something he has that JFK, TR, FDR, and HST don't have going for them.

Also, Reagan is not unlike the current GOP on the subject of smaller government. Both Reagan and the GOP talk about reducing government, but both have no problems increasing it.

Well, in that case, they still follow Reagan to a T - they're both hypocrites.

 

[StorminNorman]

I never denied that.

 

[The Overlord]

Wait...they don't?

Not nearly as much, almost GOP every convention mentions Reagan, almost everyone running for the GOP compares themselves to him, people in the GOP
talk about naming things after Reagan, a lot.

Even David Frum, who is hardly a lefty, has mentioned the GOP mentions Reagan too often and that hurts them with the younger generation. Its not the 80s anymore, move on.

 

[souvlaki]

Not nearly as much, almost GOP every convention mentions Reagan, almost everyone running for the GOP compares themselves to him, people in the GOP
talk about naming things after Reagan, a lot.

Even David Frum, who is hardly a lefty, has mentioned the GOP mentions Reagan too often and that hurts them with the younger generation. Its not the 80s anymore, move on.

I'd tend to agree with this. The entire GOP primary was nothing but a bunch of candidates trying to out-Reagan the other. Wasn't there even a short film about Reagan at the RNC? I mean, Kennedy, FDR, Truman, and Johnson (and hell, even Lincoln) were all mentioned by Democrats last year but at least there was some variety. The GOP was entirely too Reagan-centric during the election, and it bordered almost on obsession with finding the next Reagan instead of moving forward.

 

[The Senator]

I believe if Nixon were not caught, his more moderate conservatism would've continued past his presidency with the GOP. We'd have seen a much more moderate Republican party compared to what we now know, instead of the neo-conservatism that we have today. In turn, Democrats would have to walk a much finer, line in the middle, taking the cards out of the hands of people like Pelosi. Watergate allowed the dormant, neo-conservative faction of the Republican Party to high jack it...and in turn, the Bush administration has allowed the neo-liberal sect of the Democratic party to high jack it, and we are going to be screwed in the long run

I disagree with much of what is said here. If Nixon had not been caught, Reagan would have been the Republican nominee in 1976. The reason why he didn't win in 1976 was because another moderate Republican president, Ford, was running for election.

Ultimately, the Reagan revolution would have occurred sooner than it did, and the Democratic Party would stay towards the McGovern left.

Also, you're misusing neo-liberal, considering neo-liberals are economically conservative.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Isn't that always the case though? I don't think the rankings are particularly fair anyway, based on the criteria. Not every president had to face the same difficulties as others, and it's difficult to judge what each would do in different situations. What would George W. Bush do if he were president during the Civil War? How would Lincoln fare if he were president during the Cuban missile crisis? What if Washington were in office during 9-11?

I think its better to judge the Presidents on what they had on their own plates at the time. I don't think our biases of today should even be considered.

 

[Addendum]

Nixon should be much much higher, but I can understand why he is not. Hoover should be lower (bottom five). Lincoln should be lower (top 5, but not top 3). Also, I am glad to see people are getting a bit more realistic perspective of Reagan following him being named best president ever by a Time Warner poll in 2004. Its only a matter of time until he is between 15-20 where he belongs. Kennedy should also be MUCH lower.

I'm surprised you didn't say Buchanan should be higher, since he did nothing while the south started to secede

 

[chaseter]

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course this stuff is important.

Some say time is a circle and history repeats itself no matter what

 

[chaseter]

Wow. This thread has exploded into arguments over who's not as good a president as everyone says, and I find that terribly amusing. You're all right, they're not, most popular former presidents have things about them that aren't very admirable, just as the more unpopular ones aren't as bad as they've been made out to be. They're human, they're ALL ****ed up in some way. What's the sense in arguing this?

Lets go get a drink...you're buying.

 

[Oddzball]

Not nearly as much as the GOP talks about Reagan. Reagan is used as the GOP's prime example of what their platforms and policies should be like, no matter how out of touch they are with the current political landscape. The last two GOP conventions featured Reagan endlessly. It was understandable in 2004 because it was the first one done since he passed away, but this year it seemed like overkill.

Oh yeah. Go back to the first couple of Republican debates during the Primaries. It was all Ragan association.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Isn't that always the case though? I don't think the rankings are particularly fair anyway, based on the criteria. Not every president had to face the same difficulties as others, and it's difficult to judge what each would do in different situations. What would George W. Bush do if he were president during the Civil War? How would Lincoln fare if he were president during the Cuban missile crisis? What if Washington were in office during 9-11?

Washington would have found Osama Bin Laden himself, kicked his ass personally and then would wear his rotting corpse like a shoe for the remainder of his two terms in office.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I believe time will not be kind to Reagan, he gets a lot of credit for things he does not deserve (such as the fall of the Soviet Union), and very little grief for all of the horrible things he did while in office.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And maybe if the Founding Fathers actually practices what they preached their would of been less slavery and discrimination in this country.

That's a misrepresentation. The Founding Fathers were not responsible for slavery, nor did they set up the infrastructure which caused it to become such a huge economic force in the early Americas. The Government they set up was simply not powerful enough to deal with the question of slavery, hence why it led to a bloody Civil War between the North and South.