Anyone see Clinton on the Letterman show?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Reasonably, I'd say Dwight Eisenhower. Fiscal conservative, social progressive, and historic Supreme Court appointee (especially Warren). Not as terribly affected by the Red Scare (couldn't get away with being anti-communist in the 50s thanks to douchebags like McCarthy), and while military intervention was a possible use, he instead used diplomatic methods and peacekeeping to achieve goals.

This was in an age where politicians could actually talk and were part of their peers rather than above them all like now.

I'm surprised that you'd chose Eisenhower. He wasn't noted for much of anything. The "do nothing" President. I think we have had a couple of good ones in the last few decades. Clinton, Reagan and JFK, IMHO. Good economy, and more respected in the world than we are today.

Hmm, unless I wrote absolutely nothing -- I'm sure setting the precedent against racism in public is indeed quite an accomplishment, and resisting being completely taken by Red Scare maniacs.

Here's what Wikepedia has in his biography:

After Eisenhower left office, his reputation declined and he was seen as having been a "do-nothing" President. This was partly because of the contrast between Eisenhower and his young activist successor, John F. Kennedy, but also because of his reluctance to support the civil rights movement to the degree that activists would have preferred, his handling of the 1960 U-2 incident, the Soviet Union's perceived leadership in the Arms race and the Space race, and his failure publicly to oppose McCarthyism, in particular his failure to defend George Marshall from attacks by Joseph McCarthy, though he privately deplored McCarthy's tactics and claims.[47] Such omissions were held against him during the liberal climate of the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time, however, Eisenhower's reputation has risen. In recent surveys of historians, Eisenhower often is ranked in the top 10 among all US Presidents.

[IAMX 3,055]

Reasonably, I'd say Dwight Eisenhower. Fiscal conservative, social progressive, and historic Supreme Court appointee (especially Warren). Not as terribly affected by the Red Scare (couldn't get away with being anti-communist in the 50s thanks to douchebags like McCarthy), and while military intervention was a possible use, he instead used diplomatic methods and peacekeeping to achieve goals.

This was in an age where politicians could actually talk and were part of their peers rather than above them all like now.

I'm surprised that you'd chose Eisenhower. He wasn't noted for much of anything. The "do nothing" President. I think we have had a couple of good ones in the last few decades. Clinton, Reagan and JFK, IMHO. Good economy, and more respected in the world than we are today.

Hmm, unless I wrote absolutely nothing -- I'm sure setting the precedent against racism in public is indeed quite an accomplishment, and resisting being completely taken by Red Scare maniacs.

Here's what Wikepedia has in his biography:

After Eisenhower left office, his reputation declined and he was seen as having been a "do-nothing" President. This was partly because of the contrast between Eisenhower and his young activist successor, John F. Kennedy, but also because of his reluctance to support the civil rights movement to the degree that activists would have preferred, his handling of the 1960 U-2 incident, the Soviet Union's perceived leadership in the Arms race and the Space race, and his failure publicly to oppose McCarthyism, in particular his failure to defend George Marshall from attacks by Joseph McCarthy, though he privately deplored McCarthy's tactics and claims.[47] Such omissions were held against him during the liberal climate of the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time, however, Eisenhower's reputation has risen. In recent surveys of historians, Eisenhower often is ranked in the top 10 among all US Presidents.

Last I checked, pretty much every President in leaving office is "do-nothing", as that's the whole reason "lame duck" was coined. No logical person will consider a Presidency based upon the time they were leaving office unless they're trying to score cheap political points.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Last I checked, pretty much every President in leaving office is "do-nothing", as that's the whole reason "lame duck" was coined. No logical person will consider a Presidency based upon the time they were leaving office unless they're trying to score cheap political points.

I didn't post it to criticize Ike, and it also said he is one of the top ten best Presidents. Any logical person would have seen that. Probably in 10 years Bush will be looked upon as having done great things for America.

[IAMX 3,055]

Last I checked, pretty much every President in leaving office is "do-nothing", as that's the whole reason "lame duck" was coined. No logical person will consider a Presidency based upon the time they were leaving office unless they're trying to score cheap political points.

I didn't post it to criticize Ike, and it also said he is one of the top ten best Presidents. Any logical person would have seen that. Probably in 10 years Bush will be looked upon as having done great things for America.

Wiki wouldn't just suggest someone is the best, it would be a sourced opinion based upon some consensus (depending on the methodology of evidence gathering), but I'm not really the type who's into other people telling me who's best (clearly a subjective opinion) and just taking that like it's factual.

Although, even though many said Clinton was awsum, as time goes by, I realize he's not so great. So given how many people realize Bush sucks now, I'm of the mindset that many (if not them, myself, at very least) will realize even further how much he took a ####### on this country and others with his one-branch authoritarian style of Presidency.

[Mononoke28 135]

I'm all for FDR. Fun as hell, handsome, overcame his disability, took this country out of the Great Depression, served almost 3 terms and led us through WWII. Love that guy!

Diana

not all the way through.

Well he couldn't do much after he died.

Diana

[SteveLaura 0]

I'm all for FDR. Fun as hell, handsome, overcame his disability, took this country out of the Great Depression, served almost 3 terms and led us through WWII. Love that guy!

Diana

not all the way through.

Well he couldn't do much after he died.

Diana

Slacker.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Last I checked, pretty much every President in leaving office is "do-nothing", as that's the whole reason "lame duck" was coined. No logical person will consider a Presidency based upon the time they were leaving office unless they're trying to score cheap political points.

I didn't post it to criticize Ike, and it also said he is one of the top ten best Presidents. Any logical person would have seen that. Probably in 10 years Bush will be looked upon as having done great things for America.

Wiki wouldn't just suggest someone is the best, it would be a sourced opinion based upon some consensus (depending on the methodology of evidence gathering), but I'm not really the type who's into other people telling me who's best (clearly a subjective opinion) and just taking that like it's factual.

Although, even though many said Clinton was awsum, as time goes by, I realize he's not so great. So given how many people realize Bush sucks now, I'm of the mindset that many (if not them, myself, at very least) will realize even further how much he took a ####### on this country and others with his one-branch authoritarian style of Presidency.

I was a very young child during Ike's second term, so I have no first hand knowledge of what it was like during his Presidency. Again, I posted the link to show that others agree that he was a good President. You have first hand experience of what life was like under Ike, I do not. So I base my opinion on what I have heard and been told.

[IAMX 3,055]

Last I checked, pretty much every President in leaving office is "do-nothing", as that's the whole reason "lame duck" was coined. No logical person will consider a Presidency based upon the time they were leaving office unless they're trying to score cheap political points.

I didn't post it to criticize Ike, and it also said he is one of the top ten best Presidents. Any logical person would have seen that. Probably in 10 years Bush will be looked upon as having done great things for America.

Wiki wouldn't just suggest someone is the best, it would be a sourced opinion based upon some consensus (depending on the methodology of evidence gathering), but I'm not really the type who's into other people telling me who's best (clearly a subjective opinion) and just taking that like it's factual.

Although, even though many said Clinton was awsum, as time goes by, I realize he's not so great. So given how many people realize Bush sucks now, I'm of the mindset that many (if not them, myself, at very least) will realize even further how much he took a ####### on this country and others with his one-branch authoritarian style of Presidency.

I was a very young child during Ike's second term, so I have no first hand knowledge of what it was like during his Presidency. Again, I posted the link to show that others agree that he was a good President. You have first hand experience of what life was like under Ike, I do not. So I base my opinion on what I have heard and been told.

You and me are in the same boat, friend.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I was a very young child during Ike's second term, so I have no first hand knowledge of what it was like during his Presidency. Again, I posted the link to show that others agree that he was a good President. You have first hand experience of what life was like under Ike, I do not. So I base my opinion on what I have heard and been told.

You and me are in the same boat, friend.

I never heard anyone say he was a bad President, but I also never heard anyone speaking of him being one of the best either. My older family members said he was a do nothing Presidnent, mantained the status quo, not that that was a bad thing. They didn't complain about him at all.

[symbiosis 0]

A good President would have vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, as people have no right to be defining marriage for others, regardless of what they think of it. A good President would have also understood the need to keep jobs here and knocked down corporate taxes, as well as keep a good sense of protectionism over free trade.

Who do consider to be our last good President?

Reasonably, I'd say Dwight Eisenhower. Fiscal conservative, social progressive, and historic Supreme Court appointee (especially Warren). Not as terribly affected by the Red Scare (couldn't get away with being anti-communist in the 50s thanks to douchebags like McCarthy), and while military intervention was a possible use, he instead used diplomatic methods and peacekeeping to achieve goals.

This was in an age where politicians could actually talk and were part of their peers rather than above them all like now.

if only Republicans were still so decent and thoughtful. But the current crowd is nasty, brutish and stupid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly when I read the postings of the poor numbskulls who continue to confuse Iraq with Iran, Obama with Osama and Muslims with Hindus, on and on and on, I have to wonder what kind of democracy it is that leaves its citizens so stupified, ill-educated and at the same time so mindlessly belligerent.

If FDR was the right man at the right time, then GWB is totally the wrong man at the wrong time and every idiot who put that $hit kicker back in office must bear a share of the responsibility.

[IAMX 3,055]

Certainly when I read the postings of the poor numbskulls who continue to confuse Iraq with Iran, Obama with Osama and Muslims with Hindus, on and on and on, I have to wonder what kind of democracy it is that leaves its citizens so stupified, ill-educated and at the same time so mindlessly belligerent.

You know, that's the funny thing. What is it that makes this country a Democracy? Is it freedoms? Less of those. Is it checks and balances? Less of those. Representative government? Only if you're a corporation. People wonder why we look so stupid going to Iraq, trying to "spread freedom" or "spread Democracy"? Makes no sense to push your own agenda in someone else's back yard when you can't even get it right in your own. This country is going to end up taking a backseat to China pretty quickly, and maybe much worse the way it's headed.

If FDR was the right man at the right time, then GWB is totally the wrong man at the wrong time and every idiot who put that $hit kicker back in office must bear a share of the responsibility.

4 more years!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's what annoys me about Iraq and the war on terror. All this jingoistic talk of "Victory" or "Defeat" over conditions that the administration itself created.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I would start by saying I don't know much about Eisenhower, and I didn't live here in the Clinton years, but I know that it takes a lot of work, diplomacy, and preventative action to create the impression that your presidency was trouble free and therefore that you were a 'do nothing' president.

Going in to GWB's term who could have predicted the trail of calamities he would leave as his legacy. Another president would surely taken some kind of action when the 'Bin Laden determined to stike' was presented to him. Other presidents wouldn't have the personal vendetta against Saddam, and need to show daddy they can fight in Iraq too, that GWB had. Would another president responded to 9/11 with an all out attack on another country, and then take the fight to another country. We can only speculate. Katrina? Would anyone else have stayed on holiday? And then he stayed in Galveston after that hurricane, seemingly to correct the Katrina debacle, only to ignore the economic crisis. Would another president have seen all the foreclosures up and down the country, and realised that it would have repercussions and take some kind of action? We can only hope?

Yes it seems to me that there are always things that the President needs to keep abreast of and resolve as quickly as possible. We have seen for the last 8 years what happens when the President only pays attention when a situation escalates to a crisis. I think it would take a great deal of skill to keep everything going on in this country simply ticking along. It should be considered a great compliment to a President, that nothing much happened in their presidency.

[SteveLaura 0]

On a positive note, Bush's golf swing has improved dramatically in the last 8 years.