C-SPAN ranks the Presidents

[StorminNorman]

But didn't touch the matter because what the consequences could be, and we saw eventually what they were. Addressing AIDS never had the potential consequences that the slave trade did/had

Still, he was a man that owned slaves in spite of believing it to be wrong. Sorry, but I don't see how you can fault Reagan for being insensitive about AIDS and not hold other leaders to the same standard. My objection does not come from faulting Reagan for his handling of AIDS, but not faulting others for equally, if not more egregious, actions.

 

[The Chairman]

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

You seriously need to stop 1791 to 1981.

First of all, America was, in historical terms, an infant during the times of slavery. No matter what the Founding Fathers' intenions were, the ending of slavery would've been a gradual process, mostly because it would have provided a major culture shock for those who found the process culturally and economically beneficial.

By 1981, there was a major attitude shift in our country since the days of Washington and Jefferson where most people didn't let prejudice interfere with their decisions and wanted to face a problem like AIDS headon. Most of the country supported AIDS research regardless of who it affected, but the government simply stayed quiet. And look what happened.

 

[BatMatt]

Still, he was a man that owned slaves in spite of believing it to be wrong. Sorry, but I don't see how you can fault Reagan for being insensitive about AIDS and not hold other leaders to the same standard. My objection does not come from faulting Reagan for his handling of AIDS, but not faulting others for equally, if not more egregious, actions.

I just don't fault them equally because I don't weigh the two situations equally

 

[StorminNorman]

By 1981, there was a major attitude shift in our country since the days of Washington and Jefferson where most people didn't let prejudice interfere with their decisions...blah blah blah

What the **** are you talking about? Yes, most people don't have prejudice interfere with decisions, that's why gay's can marry and pot is legal.

 

[StorminNorman]

I just don't fault them equally because I don't weigh the two situations equally

Yes, slavery is worse.

 

[BatMatt]

Yes, slavery is worse.

slavery is worse, that's obvious. The time in which slavery was ignored by the president, and the time that AIDS was mainly ignored by the president, are not equal

 

[The Chairman]

Both are equal to me. Anything in which the consequences result in the degredation or loss of human life should be held to the same standard.

 

[SentinelMind]

slavery is worse, that's obvious. The time in which slavery was ignored by the president, and the time that AIDS was mainly ignored by the president, are not equal

Yes, slavery was ignored well beyond Washington and Jefferson's Presidencies....decades after.....whereas AIDs wasn't funded up to the ideal level until Reagan's second term, 6 years after it was first identified.

 

[The Chairman]

Let's look beyond slavery and look at racism towards African Americans in general. It took well over 200 years for them to become generally accepted.

 

[Handsome Rob]

The stupidity of those people is mindboggling. Maybe if they had raised awareness on the issue of AIDS back then, and made discussion about those activities mainstream, maybe people would've stopped engaging in said activities, because they'd know that they could possibly get AIDS.

People now are still engaging in those activities, even after the consequences of engaging in unprotected sex have been well known for years. AIDS has been mainstream for years. Its causes have been known for years. The methods of prevention have been known for years. Still, it spreads.

Reagan's taking further action wouldn't have stopped AIDS any more than the "War on Drugs" has stopped illicit substance use. It's easy to come in as a Monday Morning Quarterback and say what he should have done. Heck, Clinton should have taken bin Laden when given the chance. But, he didn't. Did we truly see him as the threat that he obviously turned out to be at the time? That's why I don't overly knock Clinton for his inaction, and that's why I won't overly knock Reagan for his inaction. You can't take the information you know now and bind people for what they didn't know then . . . or didn't fully understand.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Accomplishments are one thing... how one conducts himself is another. Nixon accomplished a lot as president, but he also managed to disgrace the office he held and impose a cynicism of government onto the American people which didn't really subside until Reagan was President.

Actually that cynicism is still very much alive today. Outside of the fact that he was a paranoid, arrogant, foul-mouthed *****e bag, he was also a pretty good President.

 

[The Senator]

Actually that cynicism is still very much alive today. Outside of the fact that he was a paranoid, arrogant, foul-mouthed *****e bag, he was also a pretty good President.

He also was corrupt, given that he attempted to sabotage the Democrats in the 1972 election...

 

[redfirebird2008]

He also was corrupt, given that he attempted to sabotage the Democrats in the 1972 election...

I think the adjectives "paranoid" and "arrogant" are referring to the corruption in his administration.

 

[chaseter]

I have yet to understand why any of this matters We are in the midst of what could be the biggest government failure in economics or on par with legislation passed nearly 8 decades ago to get us out of the ruff.

And here we are fussing over an opinionated list History will talk different about most of these people as time goes on any ways In 10-20 years this whole list will be different.

 

[souvlaki]

I have yet to understand why any of this matters We are in the midst of what could be the biggest government failure in economics or on par with legislation passed nearly 8 decades ago to get us out of the ruff.

And here we are fussing over an opinionated list History will talk different about most of these people as time goes on any ways In 10-20 years this whole list will be different.

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

 

[Oddzball]

In time I think 35.) George W. Bush will move to the high or middle 20's....
Just my thought...
I think history will actually be a little nicer to him then the people of the time

Truman got an overall raise in opinion due to a coopule of factors. He really did a lot more genuine good for the country as President that most folks overlooked.

Going from Surplus to a deficit that topped the entire red ink produced by the combinde Presidencies that proceeded him, even adding the Revolutionary War debts and hell even Adding all of Mexico's debts is probably going to kill his chances at good mention in history books. Even if lying us into an unnecessary second war in the Middle East didn't doom him utterly.

 

[The Overlord]

I may not care for Reagan, but I lot of people did, so I won't dispute his place on the list.

What I think is a problem is conservatives still talk about him all the time, today. Its like they are trying to create a cult of personality around him. He hasn't been President for 20 years and lot of young people who can vote would too young to remember him. Talking about him all the time makes the GOP look like a party that is obsessed with the past, rather then one that looks to the future. Its not the 80s anymore.

The Dems don't talk about about JFK or FDR all the time, because that would make them look out of touch.

 

[Matt]

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.

 

[StorminNorman]

The Dems don't talk about about JFK or FDR all the time, because that would make them look out of touch.

Wait...they don't?

 

[The Chairman]

Wait...they don't?

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.

 

[StorminNorman]

Party's constantly recognize icons of their parts: for the GOP thats Lincoln, Teddy and Reagan, for the DNC that's FDR, Truman and JFK. I don't remember any over the top Reagan memorials during the Republican Convention.

 

[Matt]

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

 

[The Chairman]

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

Totally. I firmly believe that Nixon was one of our best presidents, without question. As a person, he's admittedly scum, but when you put it into perspective, he's no different than any other slimebag in D.C., except that he got caught.

 

[SuperFerret]

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?

 

[The Chairman]

Party's constantly recognize icons of their parts: for the GOP thats Lincoln, Teddy and Reagan, for the DNC that's FDR, Truman and JFK. I don't remember any over the top Reagan memorials during the Republican Convention.

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.