July 08, 2010

10 Worst Presidents of all Time

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel
Recently some liberal think tank put out their list of best and worst presidents of all time.  Well here is my list of worst.  Will follow it up with my list of 10 best presidents soon.
10.  (tie) Both Bushes.  Bush Sr. waged a quick decisive war with world wide support, then screwed his chances of re-election by raising taxes; breaking a loud bush_sr_jrand clear campaign promise, resulting in Bill Clinton (which also unleashed Algore on the world).  All he had to do was keep doing what Reagan began and he would have been enormously successful. 
W – Turned enormous popular support following successful handling of 9/11 into dismal PR numbers following Katrina and did little to fight media regarding wars.  Reagan would have spoken to the American People, W either wanted to appear above the hype, or was clueless.  Let situation in Camp X Ray and Abu Ghraib get totally out of hand.  Never publicly displayed Bin Laden’s dead carcass. Said we would have to abandon free market to save it….paved the way for Obama’s election.
bill_clinton_yeahihitit 9.  Bill Clinton: The Blue Dress, defined the word “is”, philanderer.  Lied to american people under Oath. Only second president in history to be impeached.   Hillary Care, Started numerous military conflicts for dubious causes, favorite thing to do when another scandal at home was brewing was to lob some cruise missiles at some 3rd world dictator.  Had a chance to have Bin Laden practically gift wrapped, did nothing.  Did nothing following a blatant act of war (bombing a US warship, the USS Cole), WTC bombing.  the list goes on. Algore…nuff said.
nixon 8. Richard Nixon – Tricky Dick.  WaterGate.  Lied to the entire country.  Resigned under cloud of impeachment.





lbj-phone 7. Lyndon Johnson  – His administration led to the term “welfare queen”, Great Society, War on Poverty = epic fail.  Mired in Vietnam because of micro management.




carter 6. Jimmy Carter - His presidency coined the term Stagflation, gas lines, created : the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. The takeover of the American embassy in Iran and holding of hostages by Iranian students, the debacle at Desert 1 rescue attempt of the hostages, fuel shortages, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. “Malaise”  A real Winner. 

teddy-roosevelt 5. Theodore Roosevelt  First openly progressive president.  Believed in supreme executive power.  Used the Bully Pulpit.    “Square Deal”.  Big Union Supporter.  Believed in US expansionism (imperialism)



FDR 4. FDR  Saw himself as some sort of perpetual president, running 4 times, leading to a constitutional amendment. Thought Eugenics was not such a bad idea.  Prolonged the depression by several years with the “New Deal” Was a Racist.  Social Security, Medicare, welfare as we know it.


martin_van_buren 3. Martin Van Buren -  For all intents the real  “father” of the modern Democratic party.  Created the party with the express purpose of staying in power, not to have any core beliefs.  Did so to silence debate on slavery.  Felt that if we just didn't talk about it, it would be ok.  Perfected the art of the “spoils system” of pay- for-play in government appointments.




Woodrow Wilson 2. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Prize in 1919 for founding the League of Nations (Epic Fail)  Giant Racist – segregated the military.  Eugenicist.  Believed you could perfect a society.  The father of all progressive ideaology.  Evil.


and the current titleholder of Worst President of the United States in history is:
Obama 1. Barack Obama, (narrowly unseating Woodrow Wilson) 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was nominated for the award after being in office for 11 whole days.  Other negative accomplishments too numerous to list and we are only halfway through his term. Will bow to anyone claiming to be royalty.  Snubs our most loyal allies GB and Israel.  Many are of the opinion he is first president to ever actually not want the country to prosper.
Did I miss anyone?  Anyone Disagree?
-KOOK

Comments (30)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I would had put Carter and FDR higher on the list, but otherwise, mostly accurate. Though the legacy of both Bushes is they led in another top 10 worse pres. Has anyone noticed that 10 of the 11 (remember, you have two at #10) are from 1900 on and 6 just in the last 45 years (my life time?). I won't fail to mention that 9 of 11 of these were in the top 15 in that stupid list that came out (only the Bushes didn't make it).
1 reply · active 768 weeks ago
Funny how that worked out wasnt it? The liberal elite loves the presidents I detest.
I'm a tad surprised that you left out the whole reconstruction era. That was as corrupt a time as there ever was in our history, and the time when the seeds were planted by the so-called "radical republicans" that would eventually grow into "modern American progressivism". Progressivism was already an established concept when TR ran as a "progressive" republican. History seems to have buried the reason they were considered to be so "radical".
2 replies · active 768 weeks ago
Well it was only a list of 10. I am not sure that anyone could have steered a safe course through reconstruction. But a lot of those presidents were pretty lackluster.
What made this a good topic is that everyone reading this will have different views on which presidents were good or bad. Some differences will be ideological, some based on their aspect of history. Topics that everyone agree on don't generally make the best conversation.

Really great post.
Interesting list. I would not include Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton. Bush was a good man trashed by the Clinton machine and the American people were stupid enough to believe the bs.

Personal peccadilloes aside, Clinton was a pretty good president, especially on economics (OK, I'm ducking now, so start slinging crap at me...)
7 replies · active 768 weeks ago
Go back and watch the old Reagan vs Bush '80 debates. Then look at the Iraq war (part one) and what the government did under his watch. Bush (pick one) was a closet leftist. A RINO.., one promised not to increase taxes and did. One promised to cut taxes "and did" temporarily while he increased government spending, cut our military in half while dividing our forces halfway around the world between "sand" and "the graveyard of empires" all while conveniently losing his veto pen. Great Presidents both I say...

Mr Silverfiddle, it seems we always agree on things, but I don't see either of the Bush Presidencies as being that great. The voters wanted another Reagan and that makes them wasted opportunities.
I think you and Kurt have good points. But I tend to agree more with you. Both bush presidencies were squandered oportunities. Both held a lot of promise and both could have been great. I would not say HW was a leftist. He was a northern elitist republican like his daddy Prescott. He never was firmly in the Reagan camp. And controversial as it may be to say, W was too much a believer in compassionate conservatism. His faith tended to cloud his judgement. But I believe he was/is a good man.
Kurt always has good points. I don't equate leftism with evil like some do. I think there are some that genuinely want to help people. I equate the "compassionate" part of compassionate conservative as leaning more socially liberal. I think those at the top are evil, and then others just follow. Many are just wrong.
I generally agree with you about Clinton. He was at least smart enough to see the political winds in 94, and move that way. That is something that I doubt the current "regime" is capable of. For me, unlike most Americans, I'd rather have a conservative congress than President because that is where the true agenda for the country is set. How many of the biggest problems of today originated with Congress? Fanny and Freddy, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. That was all past tense though as now we have a regime in place that does not feel that it is bound by silly things like laws. I hope that other Presidents in the future do not BHO or less so Bush decisions as precedents as BHO has done with Bush. BHO blames every thing that happens on Bush, then in the ultimate backhand to the intellect of the people, uses every Bush decision made as his excuse for bad/unpopular decisions. I never and still really don't question Bush's (43) motives. I think at the end of the day, he wanted to do what he thought was best, but was wrong. I do question the motives of the one who came after, as well as FDR, WW, and others going back to the "corrupt bargain" (Andrew Jackson vs Adams/Clay). I think Clinton was ok, but the congressional election of 94 saved his rear. Clinton helped, in part because he figured out by late 96, a little more than a year in to that congress, Clinton decided not to lock horns with Congress anymore. With the current super liberal congress, I think the "lame duck" period after the midterm elections will be bad. I think a bunch of bitter lame duck senators will pass everything the House has sent them in the last 2 years leaving much for the incoming congress to undo. Obama will veto everything and our (Federal) government will be (needed?) gridlock until 2012.
Gridlock would be a blessing
I had not heard anything about the lame duck session of congress when I made this comment. Apparently Karl Rove agrees with me, although I would NOT call myself a fan of his.
Bush Sr had potentially the easiest presidencial re-election bid ever until he pulled his stunt with raising taxes. He should have easily surfed the wave of popular sentiment following the gulf war. But he was a blue-blood republican type who was never really in Reagan's camp. He was ideologically much more similar to Clinton.

Clinton was the most amoral president we have probably ever elected, and we will never know all where all his skeletons are buried. He was IMPEACHED and should have been OUSTED for LYING Under OATH...
his economic successes and "middle of the road" management style were a product of his love of being president and a republican congress... he was not an ideologue for sure, and I believe he loves this country, but he completely believed that politics was the "art of the possible".
Bush Sr. was definitely a middle of the roader. All I can say is that he was a competent man. I agree he was no conservative. I didn't defend Bush the Younger. Clinton was the other on I said didn't belong (and I cussed him plenty--I was in the Air Force during his admin).
2 replies · active 768 weeks ago
I think both Bush presidents were competent, but I also think they saw the Republican brand as pre-"Reaganites" did, and that was as a more "liberal" party, despite how they campaigned. That puts them on the wrong side of history in my book. Kook mentioned both of them as tied, and while my list of 10 worst Presedencies would have been far different, I am keeping to his topic and he saw, as I do the similarities in the Bush Presidencies.
I agree with you on the Bushes
Grant likely deserves a place at the table... His administration was as corrupt as any and he was drunk as well.

I agree their are similarities in the Bush administration. However, I do not believe they rate the same. Bush Senior was in my view the more competent administrator.
2 replies · active 768 weeks ago
We see eye to eye about Grant. I'd really lump the whole era from the death of Abe, until TR as horrid. It was a horrible time, and handled so wrongly. Had it been handled correctly, many of the scars that were left on this country from the civil war could have healed properly and not have led to the situation today. Instead, those wounds have been used to "divide and conquer" us from within by the radical ideology fermented by Karl Marx, who was, oddly, a very close friend to a revered President who is high up on most of our readers'' list of "best Presidents" lists.
Grant was not a good president, and his cabinet was for sure corrupt as hell. Although I think he deserves some blame for all of that, he was not orchestrating the corruption like Clinton and Obama.
He was a drunk., and he didn't really want to be President if I remember correctly. Great General; bad president.
Andrew Johnson should have made the list. He was a disaster as President after Lincoln was asassinated. Taft really didn't do much. Hoover was a 3/10. Harry Truman's handling of the Korean War was a debacle, though he did make the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan. I think FDR would have dropped the A-Bomb to. Ford's impotence gave us carter. Grover Cleveland wins worst name.
3 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
I can't disagree with much here, other than FDR dropping the A-bomb, and Truman. FDR was a pure marxist, who had ulterior motives for every thing he did right until he died. Japan bombed Pearl, FDR invaded Europe unnecessarily. Often it seems like I am the only one who questions this action, but given our ramp up to WW2, FDR wanted that war to pay for and lock in his social programs at a time when the American people, and the Supreme court were against them. Then when we invaded Europe "to bring democracy" as it was said, we gave half of Europe to the Russians to carve into it's empire, but made England give it's up. That deal was struck by FDR before we decided to invade. Truman got stuck with FDR's social and foreign policy disasters. How much could he do? He was required by the UN treaty to defend Korea, and at that time Presidents honored things like treaties, unlike now.
Yes Andrew Johnson should probably have made the list...so many shitty presidents to choose from.
Taft did not want to be president, and I have found that often the presidents we do not remember are some of the better ones because they did not tinker with everything. But Taft was much happier on the supreme court later.
Hoover was a stinker... Truman did not do a great job with Korea, but his hands were a bit tied. I think FDR might have occupied Japan. Ford was not elected to either office, and he was not all that great you are correct. I do not have much of an opinion on names, but if I had to pick I might have picked Millard Fillmore for worst name.
We did occupy Japan, but FDR would have tried to annex much of what the Brits had to give up, plus Japan. That was the deal as the world was "carved up" between the two major powers that were clearly going to eventually win that war. The ultimate plan was for us to emerge from WW2 as a second communist power. When FDR died and Truman took over, all that changed and so came the cold war..as I see it.
I'll keep it simple, instead of getting into the logic concerned with the interpretations of your formal theory, I'll say this :

You got the #1 slot absolutely correct. To do it up any better would be to remove the preceding 9 and put Barry in them as well. Then you''d have perfect imperfection and absolute idiocy. ;-)
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
If we had suffered through 10 bho's already, we would already be in the circular file of history.
Oh and just curious .... why is it that when I try to publish a comment via Firefox and I enter my email address, I get a form pop-up message from IntenseDebate that states "invalid email address" ? ...... my gmail address is totally valid, and if I use Internet Explorer instead, it works just fine. No big deal, just annoying as hell.
1 reply · active 768 weeks ago
From my end, I don't know. Kook handles the web side here. I use safari so it's totally different for me.
This list seems mostly accurate. For now, I'll accept your placement of George W. Bush but I think history will eventually think more kindly of him.
1 reply · active 766 weeks ago
Well I am hopeful of that as well

-Sent from my iPhone
Kook did a great post here. We all see differently about these things, so it made excellent conversation, but while my list would have been different,
I am in no way knocking his, or yours. I strongly defend Bush on some issues, like his home runs with supreme court picks, especially with a razor thin mijority and then minorities in the Senate. I don't agree with all he did but I believe he did what he thought was best. Those supreme court picks may do more to save the nation than anything so, in that regard, I think history will be favorable to him on that, but invading Iraq and Afganistan after cutting troop numbers in half was bad and we voted him in wanting a Reagan. The fact that he wasn't a "Reaganesque libertarian/conservative makes his Presidency a missed opportunity in my book. (So no I don't have Bush derangement syndrome, I just call them as I see them fairly.)

Post a new comment

Comments by

Blog Widget by LinkWithin