jimshiz Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Would you rather have an honest man who had below average presidential terms, or a dishonest man who had tremendously productive presidential terms?217784[/snapback] This deserves its own thread. Here's the presidents in my life time with my own opinion of his character and my own opinion of his presidential success: Kennedy - probably of just so-so character mainly only because of the Marylyn Monroe thing. - from my own historical perspective, I consider Kennedy one of the best presidents of the last century. Johnson - probably of good character. Viet Nam War was not good for him. Conspiracies imply crookedness wrt Kennedy & Defense contractors. - I actually don't have an opinion of Johnson that would swing either good or bad. Nixon - had many good traits. but he had an "enemies list" and he was willing to cover up the truth about Watergate. Most would agree that he was not really of good character. - Nixon I remember and there are so many things that I do like about him that regardless of Watergate, I still rank him high on my own "list". But, most would say his presidency was not successful. Ford - probably of good character - unless you want to bash him for the Nixon pardon - with no specifics; possibly just piling on by me, I would not characterize his presidency as successful. Carter - you have to say he was/is of good character - but, his presidency was not successful; whether it was his fault or not Reagan - few honest people would argue the fact that Reagan was of good character. The extreme will point to Iran-Contra as enough to outweigh any good. - a two term president who most should say was successful regardless of the growing deficit. Bush (41) - good character - probably slightly unsuccessful presidency evidenced by loss to Clinton; regardless of Persian Gulf War. Some successes on his watch were initiated by Reagan. Clinton - people will argue about his character. In my eyes, mainly only because of the affairs, I would personally say not of good character. - his presidency will go down in history as one of the most successful. this is regardless of the Impeachment. Many can say that was partisan. GWB (43) - my own opinion is he is of good character. Bush Haters will obviously disagree and will continue to say he is nothing but a liar and a dumb ass. - again, my opinion only, is his presidency is successful. He is a two term president. The Iraqi War is not going great... but Afghanistan is "free" and millions in Iraq can be considered "free" - the election on Jan. 30 will actually be a good PR thing. This one will be most controversial to most. My own biases can be seen in Nixon where I realize he was obviously not a nice man, but I like most of the things he did as president. And in Clinton where my personal opinion of him is that he is a scum bag, but his presidency was one of the best for our country. And Kennedy had some of the same human weaknesses as Clinton, yet I like what he did for taxes and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Editing a little bit, which I'll do below, a pattern emerges. I don't consider Nixon's an unsuccessful presidency. Got the country out of Vietnam, established communication w/ China that otherwise might have gone in a much worse direction than it has been, among other things. That said, he was a certified scumbag if you've heard some of the recorded conversations, and, of course, you know about Watergate.... I would consider Johnson to be of about average-to-good character who gets smeared by conspiracy nuts and people listen and say "Maybe so" as if the ramblings have a solid basis. He had some good moments but they were overshadowed by his micromanagement in Vietnam caused many of the problems. That he abdicated the Presidency in '68 was proof positive he was unsuccessful even in his own mind. (Tangentially, the funniest thing I've found in my textbook readings was that he was once asked by a reporter why wars happen. He unzips his pants, points, and says, "This!") As for G.W. Bush, it's doubtful that he's of "bad" character. I do believe that, overarchingly, he wants the good things to happen and this is more and more taking on the look of desiring the unacheivable and biting off much more than we can chew. This is exampled by his inaugural speech. But your assertion that being a dumb-ass and organizational structure resembling NASA in the spaceshuttle Challenger days ties into the character issue is wrong. That goes into the measure of success. His style of negotiation with people whose opinions differ is to not negotiate at all. Many senators on both sides have attested to this. I wouldn't be so quick to put his egg in the successful basket just yet.... The pattern that emerges is that presidents of "bad" character are successful in terms of getting things done and the results they get. The presidents of "good" character have mostly failed at producing effectual results. Another one of those headscratchers in a world that makes less and less sense with each passing day. But that has been the story of human history. Effective rulers usually turn out to be azzholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Overall, that was a very good assessment... and very surprising considering our wide disagreement of today's subjects. My own differences: Kennedy in my opinion was a man based on popularity, and of little substance. His family got him where he ended up, both as a senator and as President in 1960. He never wrote Profiles in Courage, he blundered his way through a lot of foreign policy messes, and he was worse than Clinton overall in his personal life. Only his brother Robert, as abrasive as he was sometimes, had any sort of personal integrity. LBJ was a very forceful man who manipulated people and often switched sides on a number of issues. His legacy is best left to his Senate terms... as President he was average. Nixon was like Clinton... a very successful presidency marred by a huge mistake. No two presidents split the country more (besides Bush II) Reagan was a perfect example of the modern Republican... excellent foreign policy decisions, but domestically below average. That's the rub... you must factor in EVERY part of the presidency, and I'm not nearly as impressed with him as I am with Nixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I think most presidents have done something in their personal or professional life that they needed to hide or was covered up (ex. in the past many presidents had affairs but the press of the time did not spend every waking minute talking about it - nor would congress.) But in todays america there is almost, you can say, a moral extremism going on. A "you better be an ideal even if we're not" thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts