- This topic has 9 voices and 28 replies.
-
Posts
-
Clinton? Perhaps this is too soon to judge. Some might argue that Lincoln was overrated. Some could say that FDR was, as well, because of the baggage that his policies have left us in our current time. Whether that can be "blamed" on FDR is another question.
John F. Kennedy. He has been romanticized because of his tragic death. His legacy would have been that of mediocrity had he finished his terms.
John F. Kennedy.? He has been romanticized because of his tragic death.? His legacy would have been that of mediocrity had he finished his terms.
I agree. How do you think the cuban missle crisis would have affected his legacy as president, if that was the only highlight of his term (or terms) in office?What about Ronald Reagan? One could argue that communisim would have crumbled no matter who was in office.
Reagan was loved by the people for the most part. His policies expedited the end of the Cold War because he outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. As for Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been the highlight and the event that showed his gross incompetence. Those missiles should never even had been allowed into Cuba. He dropped the ball on that one all the way around.
What about Woodrow Wilson? Wilson totally mishandled foreign policy. He had the Congress declare war, when the army was totally unprepared to fight. No planes, no machine guns, no artillery!Every weapon of some quantity was obsolete, except the Springfield '03, of which there were severe shortages.
Reagan was a twit who happened to be in office at the right time. Kennedy was well-intentioned but he inherited a lot of politicalbaggage from Eisenhower, especially the Bay of Pigs. He also had won by an extremely narrow margin and had nothing remotely resembling a mandate. And there was this little thing called the Civil Rights Movement that was occupying a fair amount of attention. FDR may very well have saved this country from revolution because of Hoover's refusal to do ANYTHING to help those whose lives had been devastated by the Great Depression. If you ever see unretouched photographs of his first inaugural you'll see machine guns on the roof of the White House because there was a real fear of an outbreak of violence. There had been an ongoing series of violent outbreaks all across the nation that seemed to be building. Read about the Bonus Army. What FDR did was SOMETHING which gave the people hope that their government gave a rat's behind about them as something other than throw-away parts for the industrial machine. My father used to tell stories of going to a local auto plant at 5AM and joining a large throng of men and the plant manager would come out and say “Who'll work for …” some ridiculously low amount and then keep uping the amount by a few cents until he got enough warm bodies for that day. Needless to say this type of treatment generated a lot of anger. By the way, my father's family had been in this country since before there was a country and his ancestors had served in the Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish-American, and First World wars and he would serve in the Second, leaving behind a wife and three kids, so it is safe to say that he, and the rest of the men out there, deserved far better treatment. Lincoln saved the country, pure and simple. If any of the other candidates running in 1860 had been elected, there would have been two countries and God only knows what the situation would be now, and even He isn't too sure what it would be. So my vote for most overrated goes to Thomas Jefferson. Yes, he wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the great political documents in history. Yes, he acquired the Louisiana Territory, violating his own principles in the process but then politicians do that on a regular basis, but beyond that he was a disruptive influence in the country. His election in 1800 came very close to splitting the country. His doctrine of nullfication as espoused in the Kentucky Resolution was a precursor to the secessionist movement that brought about the Civil War, even though it was in a good cause (oppositon to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798). He introduced the party system to American government, something the Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to. He also preached against slavery but could never find it in his heart to free any of his own slaves. In short, he talked a better game than he played.
Reagan was a twit who happened to be in office at the right time.?
I wouldnt go so far as to call him a twit, But I do believe that the great Soviet empire was on it's way out no matter who was in office, even if it had been Mondale.
I wouldnt go so far as to call him a twit, But I do believe that the great Soviet empire was on it's way out no matter who was in office, even if it had been Mondale.
Mondale would have been a decent President, but he lacked the stamina Reagan had to push the envelope and expedite the Soviet Union's demise. I doubt he could have caused Gorbachev to back down at Reykjavik. Mondale was not a confrontationalist like Reagan. You must remember that the Soviets were utterly terrified of Reagan in his first term. They were completely sure he was going to launch a first strike against them. By 1986, however, the Russians came to understand that Reagan was someone they could sit down with and strike a deal, but they still respected his ardent strength. I just can't see the same thing happening had Mondale been in office.
Mondale would have been a decent President
I dont remember the man, I was fourteen at the time of the election. All I remember is the horrible spanking he got at the polls.
I dont remember the man, I was fourteen at the time of the election. All I remember is the horrible spanking he got at the polls.
I was younger, but I remember him running with Geraldine Ferraro and I think having her on the ticket hurt his chances of picking up traditional Democratic states. He would have lost anyway, but perhaps not as soundly. Reagan was just one of those guys who could warm over a crowd when he spoke and his decisiveness on how to deal with the Soviet Union assured his re-election. Mind you I am not saying Ferraro was not qualified to be Vice-President, it's that having a woman on the ticket required a leap of faith that most folks at the time were not yet ready to make. Nowadays I don't think it would be such a big deal. Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice are being touted as candidates and even frontrunners in their respective parties.
Reagan benefited from the increasing conservatism of the country. He was also a very comfortable candidate, very likable, much like Bush II. In many ways he was a forerunner of the modern candidate – soft, cushy, kind of like the Pillsbury Dougboy. No rough edges. It will get you elected today but it can too easily mean that there is no hard core inside and that is potentially dangerous. I am convinced that our three greatest Presidents could never be elected in today's television and advertiising driven culture that places most of the emphasis on style rather than substance. Lincoln was, well, ugly. He reportedly had a high squeeky voice with a pronounced Midwestern twang. His wife was a bit of a whack job and there were rumors that his mother may have been less than morally upright. FDR was a cripple whose wife was uglier than sin, even though she was a great women. Truman lived with his mother-in-law and was way too blunt spoken – he once threatened to beat the hell out of a newsman who denigrated his daughter's singing ability and his language was salty. He also refused to play the spin game and very publicly went to the funeral of Tom Pendergast, his mentor and the man who got him started in politics, and who was a notorious political boss. And he was a failed businessman whose father, unlike our current President, didn't have rich friends to bail him out. Don't believe me that non-warm-and-fuzzy can't get elected? Look at how fast Howard Dean crashed and burned after one “excited utterance”. Listen to any of the so-called presidential “debates” that would never have cut it on my high school debate team. They are in fact serial spin sessions with their pre-determined questions and their 90 second canned responses and no actual debate between the the candidates. Read the accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and compare them to any of the recent presidential debates – you'll see what I mean. Oh, and by the way, Mondale had the television charisma of a wet mop while Reagan came across as warm and fuzzy, at least on tv, and that's all that counts nowadays.
Jimmy Carter was warm and fuzzy also and perceived to be a morally pious man. Yet with the current conditions of the world, I think he would not be able to get elected since most would fear he would be too soft on security. Connections and high profile names are what get elected. Clinton was a true darkhorse candidate, but he did have heavy hitters like Tyson Foods backing him. He also clicked with the younger generation and the soccer moms. Bill Clinton was probably the best politician of our day……had to be cause he lacked morals and substance personally yet still got elected and survived the impeachment attempt. 🙂
Clinton is one of the great disappoints as President. He had the potential to be a real leader of the country as well as his party. He had charisma, real charisma. He was smart, perhaps too smart. But he lacked that hard moral center that the truly great Presidents have, men like Truman and Lincoln. And he had what too many Americans have – a very weak moral compass that allowed them to look at a situation and say “Well, it's not REALLY illegal so I can justify it to myself, so what the hell, let's do it!” As for the whole impeachment thing – gee, a 50 year old guy diddled with a 21 year old bimbo, boy am I shocked. I still maintain that his big mistake was, in that famous taped deposition where he categorically denied any sex with Lewinsky, he should have looked them dead in the eye and said “Anything that may or may not have happened was between two consenting adults and is none of your damned business.” I think most Americans would have said “Okay Bill, now let Hillary chew on your ass for awhile, that's enough punishment.”Your comment about the security environment in this country is too true. I also think its vastly overblown. They made their point - they can hurt us and hurts us badly - but their real emphasis is getting us out of their part of the world. The bottom line is that the terrorists can destroy American property and take American lives - occassionally in large amounts - and there is really very little we can do about it, although having government agencies actually TALK to each other would be a major step in the right direction. But they can NEVER destroy us, but we can destroy ourselves by using the fear, the paranoia that the government is creating, to destroy ourselves. The way we do that is violating every principle that this country supposedly stands for with things like invading a foreign country because we don't like their form of government, locking people up without the basic rights and guarantees that are in our Constitution, that were enunciated so brilliantly in our Declaration of Independence, by torturing those we have seized in violation of international law, by violating the civil rights of our own citizens, by allowing a President to sign a bill into law and then adding a note that it doesn't apply to him because he's, well the President, who apparently thinks he's king. By doing that, we let them win. And finally, would a Christian theocracy be any better than a Muslim theocracy? Given the lessons of history I don't think so. Look at the history of the Papal States. They were a major political power for many centuries, waged war to gain territory. The bottom line is that the best rule is still the Golden Rule - it's just unfortunate that so few seem to obey it.
