Everyone has their views on what makes a good president...what makes a bad president, and what makes a horrible president. So at the risk of being attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, I offer the following "off-the-cuff" observations of the Presidents starting with Richard Nixon (no research went into this, so I reserve the right to flip-flop completely once I think about it more).Nixon: A micromanager, often vindicative and arrogant, but also an expansive thinker. He opened up relations with China and started the EPA, but also, after watching his VP go down in flames, decided to jump into the inferno himself. What on earth was the guy thinking expansively about when he did that?
Ford: He was a nice guy, but we have to admit that he was merely an accidental placeholder. Kind of the last man standing after the embarrassment of Agnew, then Nixon's downfalls.
Carter: An idealist and humanitarian with broad ideas and future thinking, but probably ahead of his time and not much of a manager of the governing process. He partially got elected because he wasn't Nixon or Ford. OPEC's shenanigans and the Iran hostage crisis completely killed any chances he had at having a good presidency, though I'm not sure he would have lasted more than the one term in any case. He has had both the most respected and the most reviled post-presidency of any recent president.
Reagan: An actor and strong of will, just when we needed someone to act like they were strong of will. I give him more credit than some regarding the fall of the USSR, but less than many (the USSR collapsed more under its own weight than anything we might have done...but Reagan clearly did his part to sneer at them as they teetered over the precipice). Other than that he was a one or two trick pony that stuck to those "ideals" and nothing else really mattered. While endeared by most, he did leave us with record debt and increased the size of government more than anyone (until Bush II on both counts).
Bush I: Again a likeable guy, especially after he was gone, but he was a VP who only got to be president because people couldn't vote for Reagan again (and because Dukakis didn't look good in a tank). He did good with pushing Saddam out of Kuwait, but like his son took his eye off the economy. His post-presidency has been as "the elder statesman."
Clinton: A smart man and expansive thinker, but with an obvious predilection that kept him from reaching his potential. He also took his first election as way too much of a mandate and pushed way too far way too fast on way too ideological issues. Which resulted directly in his last 6 years working with a Republican Congress. Despite their incessant attacks on his personal character (resulting in $45 million being spent to prove the guy lied about getting a bj in the oval office), the split power-sharing actually resulted in decent governing, in part because Clinton was man enough to suck it up and be pragmatic. The impeachment was more a reflection on the Republicans in the House than it was on Clinton, which is why his approval rating remained high despite his "indiscretions." It helped that he presided over the largest economic growth in decades and a budget surplus or two.
Bush II: Perhaps with time we won't still think of W as the worst president ever. But frankly, it's going to take a while. At the very least it won't happen until we recover the surplus he turned into debt, finish two wars he started, recapture our international respect and leadership role, and dig ourselves out of the economic canyon he left us. As I said, it will take time. Ironically, his legacy will depend on how well Obama does.
Obama: Who knows. The man thinks, but he started with the massive legacy of Bush II. He could be as good as some think, or as bad as others hope. We'll have a better idea in the run up to the 2010 mid-term elections, but realistically this hole is going to take longer than that to fill in. His chances in 2012 will depend less on us being "fixed" as it will on whether people like the direction he is taking us. Without a doubt it looks like it will be a different direction than we had been going before his eleciton. The big question is, will we like it? The answer - it's the economy, stupid. If the economy looks good, he will look good.
So, agree...disagree...ignore. Thoughts?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 225
But, getting a blow job from a female subordinate should offend some of you PCers out there. Or is there a Clinton/Kennedy double standard??
Please that went way over the line.
Obama needs to get to gittin' and do less talking. If he doesn't bring home a meaningful health care bill an/or makes the wrong decision on Afghanistan, he might be a one termer. And he is going to lose some seats in both houses during the mid-terms unless he parts the Sea of Reeds.
WTF?!?
Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then again, obviously Jericho is not serious.
Does kinda sound like Slick though, you gotta admit.
When Bush stepped in office it busted. Bush knew his re-election was at stake so instead of giving the economy the tough love it needed he worked with Alan Greenspan to go on the biggest spending spree ever with huge deficit spending and tax cuts, buying him 4 or 5 years of phony prosperity, enough to get him re-elected.
Now Obama comes in and faces a similar situation as Bush. And guess what? He's doing the same thing, only this time all the numbers are bigger.
Obama's appears ready to more than max out our deficit spending ability, and substantially weaken the dollar, all to keep us in an economic bubble. I will readily label him worst president ever, with Bush coming in right behind.
sure - it would come back - but a complete collapse would be brutal and nasty in the meantime.
Peter, the booms are the problems; the bust is the cure. You have to let the markets correct themselves, and that can be painful for awhile, but it is less painful than letting it all build up as we have done.
For instance, the bailouts should never have happened, bankrupt companies must be allowed to fail. Capitalism and free markets would have knocked out a good number of corporate crooks, but no, the government and it's bought and paid for politicians wouldn't let that happen. Now we get to complain as the top executives enjoy big bonuses and salaries. They would have lost their jobs if we had not meddled with the markets.
The debt will be the number one concern soon enough once foreign nations stop lending us money. That's going to come sooner than we'd like to think.
Regan is the only truly bad President, if only because he orchestrated the purging of moderate Republicans. The partisan divide is his legacy, and his shame.
I'm not sure I agree that the dot.com bubble was from a loose monetary policy, since it really had nothing to do with financial institutions (well, except for the investment bankers). Most of the dot.com was on us, as we all invested in companies that had nothing more than an idea backing them up. For every Google there were a thousand others with no business plan and no idea how to run a business. But we invested in them anyway. Kind of dumb. And clearly there were surpluses.
I also think you've completely missed the a key even affecting Bush II and the economy. In the first 8 months he mostly was focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy in a classic Reagan "trickle down" theory, but 9/11 pretty much changed the game. Rather than adapt, Bush II tried to play both ends against the middle (class).
I think all agree that Obama artificially propped up the economy. Especially since everyone called on him to do it and he said he was doing it. It's called the Stimulus. The idea was to keep the economy afloat rather than let it sink into a depression...long enough to allow people to learn how to swim. Arguably it is working, and those who point to the terrible unemployment numbers seem to forget that 1) employment always lags in a recovery, and 2) the loss of jobs was horrific before he took office and has moderated ever since that time. It's like complaining that there is still a trickle of bleeding even though the patient had been spurting like an open spigot before. [And before anyone gets all up in arms, I do know (from personal experience) that everyone without a job isn't about to start singing any praises while they are still unemployed. Which is why everyone is still working very hard to fix the problem, not just slow the flow.)
Is there such a thing ???
The wild west was wise ???
And stop trucking gasoline around and see how long things last.
Is there such a thing ???
No, it's just an ideology for the weak to hide in.
You're right. The .com bubble was not caused by the loose monetary policy alone; but it did create a good environment for it to happen in.
If capitalism will always survive, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth because Obama supports the (Socialist) status quo? And I'd like to see capitalism survive without our socialist postal service, utilities, etc.
The postal service is one of the few govt. services that libertarians recognize as legit but UPS and Fed X would put them out of business in a heart beat.
If it makes you feel better, let's not call it capitalism. Let's call it free enterprise. No one could be against that!!!
Other than that, free enterprise is a great thing.
Wall Street hopes that Congress won't stumble on to a dictionary, anytime soon.
I find your disregard for the rule of law rather disheartening. Here is what Abraham Lincoln thought:
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. (January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address)
and
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap -- let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; -- let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. (also from the Lyceum Address)
and
Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief -- resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. (July 1, 1850 Notes for a Law Lecture)
I'm afraid the first Republican president would find your attitude rather illogical.
If Tia Rosita were forced to comply with all of the stupid and inapplicable laws, I couldn't get any real tamales, anywhere.
And who gets to decide if the laws are "stupid and inapplicable?" You? Tia? The person breaking the law? Seems rather illogical as well.
We have laws for a reason.
"The only way to be unpatriotic is to be a scofflaw" Tim Nelson.
They were picked by illegals.
Wear Garments???
Sewn in illegal sweat shops in East LA.
I saw some episodes of "Dexter", it kind of creeps me out.
I'm the one who waits for the light to change before crossing, even when there is no one in sight in any direction.
Pretty sure that oranges, and garments are not illegal to buy, but if they were...
Peter Joseph Swanson Oct 20, 2009, 2:56pm EDT
Funny, the right is accusing Obama of being that while he scrambles to save capitalism. ha ha
Obama saving capitalism? That is one of the funniest and dumbest things I've read in a very long time.
It's called Capitalism, otherwise known as Markets, and it all hinges on Credit and Banks.
Get real.
If you say so.
And, how many of you have ever smoked an illegal weed??
Nope
Or had a beer while under age or pushed the speed limit by 15 MPH.
Nope on the beer; nudged the speed limit and paid for it in accordance with the law.
or fudged (mebbe pushed the edge of the envelope a touch) on your federal or state taxes??
Nope.
Double parked or, heaven forbid, parked in a handicapped spot??
Nope, and nope.
Who didn't cheer for Thelma and Louise???
Do you mean when one protected the other from being raped? Actually, that was within the limits of the law. (Still, nope on the cheering) The other stuff, nope.
or Dexter???
What's a Dexter?
Seems you know a lot of people who regularly dismiss the rule of law. I don't.
Nope
They were picked by illegals.
So you have checked the legality of every person in the United States who has picked oranges and determined that every single one of them is an illegal alien? And yet you didn't report them to authorities?
Wear Garments???
Sewn in illegal sweat shops in East LA.
Again, you've checked every garment anyone ever wore and they all come from the illegal sweat shops in East LA? Even the ones that say they were sewn in Malaysia, China, Vietnam, Suriname, and Bulgaria? And again, didn't report these illegal activities?
Are we a bit prone to hyperbole and overgeneralization?
I'm beginning to think you made Tia Rosita up just to push your point, which seems to be that the rule of law is for sops and you think people should just violate any law they don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure they are too, Tim. Even the ones that are imported.
do your ears turn red when you're angry?
mine do
Alan Greenspan took 50 years to admit that markets are no self-correcting.
I hope Congress doesn't take 50 years to regulate them.
It is their job, after all.
this is why i stay away from politics
all they do is uselessly anger my blood
He actually had some common sense back in the 1960's.
Lincoln didn't have the Code of Federal Regulation, the IRS Code and a gazillion contradictory and special interest initiated state and federal laws to deal with. Also, the Founding Fathers committed TREASON to set up the "Rule of Law" in this country.
Absolutely-- I like to illustrate a point by parable--like Jesus, Buddha and Abe Lincoln!! I find that actual facts and figures sometimes mask the real truth.
No kidding? You mean you just made her up and lied about all the information just to press your preferred viewpoint that it is okay to break the law?
There is a whole world of people out here that do what they have to to survive.
Like break laws?
They don't live in the ivory tower that you seem to.
You think I live in an ivory tower because I don't go around breaking any law designed to protect the rights of all Americans, just because I feel like it?
I find that actual facts and figures sometimes mask the real truth.
So you think actual facts get in the way of your preferred message?
Here is a fact for you. Obama has instructed the Justice Dept. to stop prosecuting people (users and sellers) who break the federal controlled substances laws in states where they are obeying state law (California).
Now- Obama took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. He is breaking that oath. Additionally, he is conceding to a state law over a federal law in direct violation of the doctrine of premption. Finally, his actions are counter-socialist because he is giving up federal power to a state so he is compromising his personal principles.
He is a pragmatist!!!!! He is using all of the tools in his belt to bring about an effect that is, in the long run, positive. But, in so doing, he is ignoring the fact that a WHOLE STATE is ignoring clearly defined federal law and has opened the flood gates for more to follow.
Riddle me that one, Law Boy.
My point here, David, is that the world is a messy place and we idealogues need to be reminded of that from time to time before we go spouting off our eutopian theories from our high horses and ivory towers.
Sorry I didn't catch up with you sooner. I guess 'weak' isn't really what I meant. I should have said self-centered.
Did I say I agreed with the decision?
Besides, he really isn't changing much from what has been going on. Not to mention that it only applies to those who are acting in compliance with State Law (which is still legally valid until overturned). Here is one take on it, though again I'm not claiming to agree with it, either legally or morally.
Yesterday’s Obama administration guidelines don’t legalize marijuana, said Attorney General Eric Holder in a statement.
“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws,” he said. “But we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”
The Justice Department will continue to focus resources on “serious drug traffickers, while taking into account state and local laws,” Holder said.
So are you going for Jim Carrey or Frank Gorshin? Or do you prefer the comic book version?
I've never advocated eutopian theories, nor have ridden high horses or lived in ivory towers. You, on the other hand, are advocating breaking of laws on the basis of simple expediency while spinning a yarn based mostly on ideological misinterpretation and/or misrpresentation.
I prefer working toward real solutions for real people based on real facts.
This string was so long that I had to look pretty far back to see what this was in reference to (poor Matthew, who probably gets an email notice every time someone comments).
That said, based on what I've seen, "self-centered" does seem to be a better descriptor.
LOL, I do get an email for every response
Self-centered, R.F.?
That's ok with me if you think personal freedom and liberty is self-centered. There's nothing wrong with them.
Markets are self correcting but don't ever let them correct.
Letting Wall Street size bankrupt business go out of business is a correction. Bailing them out is not.
Very true.
Very true.
Actually, it's only true if you think one or two dimensionally. Thinking multidimensionally one would easily see that it not only is it emotionally possible to be otherwise, but that most of humanity would fall into some middle ground between thesw two largely artificial extremes.
In other words, most people are real, not caricatures.
And, the people in power will always bend it to their own purposes. It is racist and unkind to the poor. It is made by people who have their own agenda and for their own purpose. It may be required to obey it but to respect it is optional.
Actually, most animals are instinctual. Needless to say, most humans have a higher order of cognition than most animals, so the generalized comparison isn't very useful. Whereas one might not expect a earthworm to think multidimensionally (or even "think" at all), there is no excuse for humans not to think multidimensionally. We have that capacity even though it appears many choose not to employ it.
I never said people don't (or shouldn't) look out for themselves first, but again we've run into a two-dimensional thinking problem here. Looking out for yourself is not inconsistent with looking out for humanity. In fact, the long-term survival of each of us now requires sustainable interactions with others, from your neighbors up through the international community.
If you eat the fish flopped up on the shore without learning how to fish, you don't last long.
The tragedy of the commons (a la Garrett Hardin) is why we have government regulation and laws. Not sand at all. Sound management.
George W. Bush will be viewed as LBJ. I think LBJ will be a near-great president and W. will be an above-average president.
It don't trickle down - so he was dreadful.
(And we will pay for his huge war mistakes in the world for decades)
This reminds me of the punchline to one of my favorite jokes
"Rats, teacher, Big F..."
We can lear a hell-of-a-lot more from a box of rocks than from bush. Ask any geologist. :-)
It's all about population, demographics, etc.
Of course, my benchmark is the Civil War.
Carter wanted to decrease the size of government and was bewildered when it mushroomed all around him and he found himself unable to control itl
How often have I heard that "Readanomics didn't work"? What Reagan proposed was that by reducing taxes, federal revenues would increase. He was right and they did. So why the deficit? An under-equipped and demoralized military. It was the military spending which broke the bank. Historians and many of us will disagree as to whether and to what extent the military spending was required.
Clinton was (is) smart, sneaky, hypocritical, polls-based and insincere. However he did pursue a moderate agenda which is so foreign to American politics today. If there are moderates out there, we're awfully quiet!
Obama: "He could be as good as some think, or as bad as others hope." I don't think that's quite fair, although I've expressed that before. Just because some people disagree with some of his policies and directions doesn't necessarily mean that they hope he fails. I for one don't support his agenda 100% but he's our President and I don't relish the thought of him going down in flames. I suspect that some realities will soak in and edge him toward a more moderate position on some issues.
There. I did as you asked.
I think there is a question usually overlooked in discussions of military spending. And that is the question of waste. We spend tons of money (translation: Billions of dollars) on weapons that are of questionable value even in cases where the Pentagon says they don't want or need them. Why? Because Congressmen want to keep the funding going back to their home districts. We also lose billions of dollars in fraud, which has been documented time and time again in the same defense contractors that we then turn around and give even more government contracts to, complete with new sets of overexpenditures and fraud opportunities. We send billions more overseas to places like Iraq where it promptly disappears into some black hole (commonly known as the pockets of dictators and defense contractors alike).
In short, the defense budget, if properly managed and held accountable, could probably be half of what it is and still get the same actual defense value out of it.
Given that the defense budget is a huge proporation of our annual budget, doesn't it make sense for someone to start managing it for value instead of as a way to get contractors rich and Congressmen reelected?
Hmm...Nixon was right of center for his time. JFK was a centrist. Ford was a bit right of center. Reagan was waay right of center. Carter was slightly to the left of center. Bush I was right of center. Clinton was a centrist; he would have been indistinguishable from most Republicans in 1960. Bush II was way right of center. Obama is conservative on foreign policy and a bit left of center on social issues.
The high polish could have been for maximum corrosion resistance, but maybe not. :) I worked as a heat treater for 15 years and dealt with government and military specifications a lot. Some of them are very reasonable even when they're costly. A lot of the high cost of military procurement is QA related. Parts have to be traceable to every step in the manufacturing process. Inspection has to be much more rigorous. OTOH, a lot of contractors have done quite well by overcharging the government.
Nixon went to China, with the same lack of enthusiasm from both parties.
Obama has all the potential in the world to do something similar.
The other Presidents took the old gamesmanship tact. Be in favor of more than you can get, and settle for what you actually can get. But don't upset the political party what brung ya.
The other Presidents took the old gamesmanship tact. Be in favor of more than you can get, and settle for what you actually can get. But don't upset the political party what brung ya.
I agree that Obama is trying to govern even if he has to drag both parties kicking and screaming behind him.
But I think it would be a mistake to suggest that he isn't adept at politics. The reality is that you can't get everything you want because there is a little thing called Congress. And Congress needs to get reelected. And if all the Democrats lose the next election than Obama will get nothing. Part of the president's job is to make things happen, and sometimes that means a choice between getting part way there versus no where.
I see Obama in the mold of Abraham Lincoln. People underestimated his political guile as well.