au
nice to see you again....re the last poll noted by nimh on presidential greatness (or lack), history really offers up a general consensus which is also susceptible to change. But when we head for the polling booth, we bring along our judgements - made in the present - about competency. No alternative, yes? So present time discussions and observations about the matter are not merely unavoidable, they are the responsibility of an educated voter.
timber
You'll recall that when the British made film "The Madness of King George III" was being planned for release in the US, the distributors in the US advised that the "III" ought to be dropped from the title, as too many Americans were likely to assume two previous movies, and thus, not attend. I think it is for related reasons that many of us outside of the US were quite surprised that the cultured American public, gulping down their McFries, didn't simply assume McGovern to be the perfect candidate.
blatham
Hilarious!! (and sad)
jjorge, I agree; isn't it sad that most Americans are unaware of the truths that affect their own lives? They live with lies, and think they are patriotic. Really, really, sad.
very funny and masterful, I agree with jjorge
Something of note, here; it is interesting that The Sitting President is our own "George III"; there was Washington, then Bush the Elder, and now W. Odd coincidence. As to the mob, well, it is a truism that nobody ever went broke underestimating the sophistication of the American populace at large.
Must be an act of God timber
Mr/. Blatham offers his opinion concerning polls.
Predictably, he offers the same tired left wing unsupported generalized pablum with regard to susceptiblity to change.
I am very sorry, Mr. Blatham but the presidential historians know more than you do about the rankings of former presidents. They are the experts, not you( Unless you are a historian who specializes in the study of US Presidents).
Lincoln, Truman, etc. will always be near the top.
Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy will always be quite far above the middle.
Clinton, Bush Sr. and Carter will always be just mediocre.
And, the statement by Woodward is correct. You may not think polls are important but the leader of the left wingers who was President of the United States in 1998 certainlyt did.
Again, I must point out that his opinion carries much more weight than yours.
I would respectfully point out that your posts are, in my opinion, mainly just unsourced pieces of garbage from someone who knows nothing of the United States( Vancouver is not much more than a collection of outsized log cabins).
Italgato
Presidential historians, based on the rankings they presented I have to wonder what their criteria is. Reagan and Eisenhower up near the top?
Eisenhower played golf and warned americans about the danger to democracry from the military-industrial complex, Reagan had Nancy redecorate the white house while he enlarged govenment size and spending to new highs. On a ten point scale I would give Eisenhower a 7 and reagan a 2. JFK I would give a 5.
It does appear The Ten Little Indians are unable to maintain the interest even of their own proponents ... no wonder The Nation ignores them.
dyslexia
What do you base Eisenhower's rating on his golf score. What was the name of his adviser who actually ran the presidency for him while he was out playing golf.
LOL, BillW.........now I wait for Dys' answer. I'm very curious.
Bill
Not Maime but Adams, he of the vicuna coat incident.
Au 1929- I hope that you did not fall for the uninformed writes during the Eisenhower era who attempted to denigrate President Eisenhower with comments about his golf game.
I do think, if you will pardon me, Au 1929, that a presidential historian of the first rank who wrote about Eisenhower, may know just a bit more about Eisenhower than you do( I am, of course, prepared to accept any documentation from reliable presidential historians who contradict what I will posit.
Fred I Greenstein, in his book, The Presidential Difference( I must tell you that Professor Greenstein is one of the country's leading Presidential Historians as well as the author of a definitive book on Eisenhower called-"The hidden-hand Presidency- Eisenhower as leader") describes Eisenhower as follows:
"A poll of specialists on the presidency conducted immediately after he(Eisenhower) left office relegated Eisenhower to the rank of such nineteenth century non-entities as Chester Arthur, but within two decades a transformation of his reputation had begun."
"The Eisenhower of the declassified record was president. He was a keen political operator who engaged in the kind of persuasion and bargaining many believed he had left to subordinates. Most interesting to students of presidential leadership, Eisenhower proved to have a non-standard but remarkably effective approach to carrying out his resoponsiblities- one in which he advanced his purposes by indirection, concealing those of his moves that were inconsistent with his apolitical exterior. Indeed, Eisenhower proves to have initiated a number of the actions that had been attributed to his subordinates."
PP. 44-45. end of quote
So, you See, Au 1929, I am very much afraid that my opinion of Eisenhower has been formed by the Presidential Historian, Greenfield and also by the Presidential Survey of Presidents' rankings set up by C- Span which rates Eisenhower as a very high NINTH.
However, AU 1929, I am always eager to learn. If you can supply a recent historian who CONTRDICTS Greenstein clearly, I would be happy to learn.
Thank you, Au 1929
Dyslexia- Congratulations!!!
I did not know you had become a Presidential Historian!!!!
May I be so bold as to ask about your qualifications?
From what University did you obtain your PHD/
Where have you worked?
I must write the C-Span historians immediately so that they can ask you to join them.
Of course, they will ask for credentials!
Au 1929- Go to
http://www. americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall. asp
There you can find a rundown of the complete rankings.
I hope I have been able to help.
Again, AU 1929, I wish to make it absolutely clear that while I have done a great deal of reading on the subject of Presidential Rankings, I am by no means an expert and must rely on findings of Professionals such as the one I give to you above.
If you have some cogent material ( presented by reliable experts, of course) that materially contradicts the judgments of Greenstein and the C-Span Historians, I will be delighted to read and learn from them.
Thank You, Au 1929
It should be borne in mind that the perception of a President's greatness or lack thereoff is much dependent on the time-remove from that President's Administration. When there is living memory of, and still-active partisanship relating to, the accomplishments and/or failures of an administration, objectivity of appraisal is at best suspect. Perhaps Kennedy's most propitious circumstance was to have been assassinated in the instant-news age of electronic media.
Forgetting Camelot, of course ...........
