Christian Forums

You've likely heard about this, but here's a link to the whole survey.

I'm okay with the top three, but have problems after that.  Wilson's too high, and, as much as I like TR, he's likely too high as well.  Also, if I were MIllard Fillmore, I'd ask for a recount. 

I believe more time has to pass before historians can really deal with Presidents from Nixon to the present without their own political bias.

Maybe.  It's entirely possible that the best comp for GWBush is not a president, but General Burnside or General McClellan. Bush's targeting the wrong section of the middle-east, and the years it will take the country to recover from this, reminds me of McClellan's ignoring the lost (and found) order at Anteitem or Burnside insisting on the doomed charge on Marye's Heights, building a pontoon bridge and charging across it while the confederates waited in plain sight on the hill on the other side of the river.

Quote from: spurly on Mon Feb 16, 2009 - 14:03:24
I believe more time has to pass before historians can really deal with Presidents from Nixon to the present without their own political bias.

True.  FDR is way too high, for example, and Grover Cleveland is way too low.

Carter being anywhere but the bottom is a travesty. His undeserved lofty position is probably due to him being a shadow of the reality that is President Obama. The shadow can't appear to be a travesty if the reality is so lofty in many people's eyes.

The people voting Carter that high clearly were either unborn at the time, or too young to have had civic and financial responsibilities at the time.  No one who was waiting in 2 hour fuel lines and paying 17% interest on their mortgage and watching the news about the hostages would put him above the 40s.

otoh, the Carter years were the last days of the big manufacturers, which began to disappear from our shores in the eighties.  Our local economy went downhill after he left office (interestingly, we're in decent shape now, when others are falling--thanks to a governor who made updating the state's financing a priority), and I believe steel-producing areas began suffering around then as well.  There's always a trade-off with the economy.

Personally I was doing better during the Carter days than anytime in my life. However I didn't have to buy a house at that time.Nd didn't depend on credit. I just don't translate my personal fortune to the policies of clearly a bad President for the country as a whole. Reagan was the best President for the country in my lifetime, however, I absolutely was going through financial hard times directly related to his plan to crash oil prices and break the Soviets.

It shouldn't at all be just about our own pocketbooks.

If Carter had been able to push his energy policy of capping oil imports at existing levels we might live in a vastly different world today. He lacked the gravitas to pull that off.

If Carter had ANY Gravitas.......!