Best President in your lifetime
 

Companion poll to the Worst President poll.

A "None of the Above" option?

Maybe it's just childhood sentimentality, but I really think Reagan gave us all an expectation of prosperity, a sense of security, national pride. He was really everything a leader should be. This was as easy as voting for W. in the other poll. It would be a tougher decision to decide who I think would be in 2nd place in both categories.

trout.

this is like asking what's your favorite cancer.

Voted Obama and let me defend it a bit as, was pointed out in the other thread, he's only a year into his presidency. I've lived through a year of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W and a year and a half of Obama. As a liberal, Reagan and Bush were out and W already had the other vote locked up so it was between Clinton and Obama.

To me, Obama still has the potential to be a great (liberal) president. He's already gotten health care done, even if it was a compromise of a compromise. The economy is showing signs of getting better. The DOW has jumped 3000 points since he took office. The jobs picture is still crappy but hey, I got one locked up for after I graduate in a week so it can't be that bad ;)

I did like Clinton, and the economic prosperity enjoyed during his term was solid. Still, his entire 2nd term was wasted on scandal and it paved the way for the worst president in my life time. So for me, it's Obama but I'm willing to re-evaluate further down the road in his presidency

I voted Clinton because he's the only one that seemed to care about fiscal responibility.

If we're going to give presidents credit for the economy of the country, then Regan has to be a slam dunk.

Clinton may be able to boast of higher numbers, but the difference from the 70s to the 80s was pretty extreme.

Yeah but Reagan destroyed the budget at the same time.

:popcorn:

clinton was truly a great (governing) president, too bad he was such a classless clown in his personal life.

I honestly don't know who to select here. The pick for "Worst" president was easy for me with Jimmy Carter, wasn't even difficult for a second thought there for me.

For the best, really everyone on the list for my lifetime had flaws (Some serious flaws). I'm probably down to deciding between Regan and Clinton, both I thought had good parts of their presidencies and bad. I'll have to think on these two a little longer.

I thought Reagan was a terrible President. I am wrong, apparently.

I don't disagree with you, but I just find it funny that Reagan is essentially doing what Obama is doing to get the economy back on track (spend a shitload of money). He raised taxes for everyone by >7% and caused a gigantic deficit that we are still paying back. He also left H.W. with a steaming pile of shit.

I guess I'm just taken by the revisionist history we have on Presidents. Carter was a huge liberal despite having a more conservative economic policy than Reagan. While Democrats seem to gloat about Clinton who was actually quite conservative with his economic policies. The two icons of each side basically did the opposite of what their followers feel is right.

Reagan was a genuinely charismatic man who got most everybody moving in one direction. If you took away the policies and just thought about that for a moment, you would change your mind. Now, add in the policies and there is plenty of room for the age old "left vs right" bantering...but to unify the nation where the 2 or 3 presidents leading up to him had failed...it is pretty amazing what he accomplished. In the late 70's we really thought we were losing the "cold war" with the Soviets. We thought it was inevitable that we would have to have a nuclear showdown. In the 1980's, that all changed. And it changed because Ronald Reagan (and Thatcher to some extent) made it change. Very impressive stuff that got all Americans on board and all Europeans on board. Basically Ronald Reagan was the Chuck Norris of Foreign Policy.

On foreign policy he ended up quite a bit better than I feared at the time and I give him credit there despite not voting for him either time. Domestic policy is another matter.

I look at Reagan as closing the door on the turmoil from the late 60s onward.

From Foreign Affairs:

"Yes, there could be a limited nuclear war in Europe."
___President Reagan, 1981

"We have contingency plans to fire a [nuclear] warning shot at the Soviet Union, warning of U.S. intentions to begin a nuclear war."
__Secretary of State Haig, 1981

Responding the United States announcement that it had plans to fire a "nuclear warning shot," Soviet leader Brezhnev said: "Even the use of one nuclear bomb would inevitably lead to an all-out nuclear exchange."

I want to take back my vote and choose David Palmer.

Carter transcended party affiliation with his ineptitude. He was less inspiring than HW Bush and didn't have a glorious foreign policy track record to give him a fighting chance...basically, after 4 years, he had nothing to show for except blunders and failures and distress. I guess you could blame it on his liberalism, but he just made bad choices or no choices at all when America needed somebody to make choices. Along came Ronald Reagan and was the hero for saying the things that had to be said and doing the things that had to be done. Much of Reagan's successful legacy is emphasized by those who could more clearly remember President Carter's days in office.

It's always good to have plan.

Ford, only because he held things together when they could have easily unraveled. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done with a full term, but with the way things were the last half of the 70's anybody would have had an extremely difficult time getting reelected in '80. Reagan was very fortunate he didn't get the nomination in '76.

I would have to say it is close between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and that I would have to give a slight nod to Bush 41.

Bush 41: 1) successful execution of the Gulf War--given what happened in Iraq after W invaded, I do not think that one can criticize Bush 41 for leaving Saddam in power as he did. 2) Successful handling of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact: no gloating, no crowing, just a calm, understated response that did not trigger a pro-communist (or worse) backlash in those countries. 3) Relative fiscal responsibility, and a commitment to keeping the deficit from balooning.

Clinton: 1) Good handling of the economy, and a willingness to embrace welfare reform. 2) Reasonably successful handling of the wars in the Balkans, marred by 1) the beginnings of excessive deregulation, which set the stage for a later economic implosion, 2) the poorly executed intervention in Somalia, and 3) a lack of discipline in his personal life, which hampered his ability to lead.

I regard Carter and Reagan as equally bad. Reagan may have won the Cold War--and I would dispute even that--but his withdrawal of US forces after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon sent a disastrous signal that, if you hit the US in the nose just once and hard enough, we'll turn tail and leave. His fiscal policies were reckless--his successors saved his reputation by getting the deficit under control before it could wreck the economy.

Climate certainly has something to do with it, but the President can affect change.

I'm not going to argue that he was a crappy leader. He didn't give much confidence to the public which is a big element of being President.

But the blaming his "liberalism" is just hilarious considering he was more conservative than Reagan on economic issues (which is one of the big things he gets bashed for). His economic policies are the same one's being touted by those on the right right now. It's just amusing to see people on the right bash Carter and then go around saying the way to fix the recession is to do the same stuff Carter did.

That's not defending Carter in any way. It's just that those bashing him the most don't seem to know what he did. They are just regurgitating talking points. Sort of like how Reagan was a great conservative.

It comes down to Reagan and Clinton. Don't see how anyone could really choose anybody but those two.

While Reagan deserves credit for his handling of the Cold War, you have to also factor in his poor handling of Latin America in the discussion of foreign policy. As well as the blowback from his policies in the Middle East that you can attribute to the 9/11 attacks (and other terrorist operations).

But Clinton got a Bj from a chubby chick.

I was a teenager at the time so I'm not going to pretend I was following it as closely as possible, but my belief is that the election of Carter cannot be separated from the trauma of Watergate. The ultimate 'outsider' election if you will.

In some ways I think part of the current populist meme of "no government is the best government" can be traced to Watergate as well. That scandal really did shake the belief that government can do good to the core.

Have to agree with this. Love him or hate him, Reagan left a legacy that has yet to be matched.

re: Reagan


Wow, I'd say the opposite. While he was a strong leader in providing morale for the country I think his foreign policy was disastrous and shameful in many ways. That's why I would not vote for him despite how a lot of people felt about him.

basically republicans are going to vote Reagan and democrats are going to vote Clinton

That's why I handicap the terms of Carter and Reagan a bit. Carter wasn't nearly as bad a president as the economy made him look -- the economy was already in the tank and wasn't going to recover as long as inflation and the energy crisis were both raging. There wasn't much he could do about either one. The economy almost had to improve under Reagan, 'cause it couldn't get any worse.

Conservatives will point toward tax cuts as being the saving grace of the '80s economic recovery and as a pinko commie liberal I'll agree that the top tax rates were too high. But the runaway government spending helped too, and the combination of both solidified the face that we will almost certainly always have a federal deficit that we cannot possibly repay.

I voted for Clinton but I handicap him as well -- he had almost as much to do with the booming economy of the '90s as Reagan did with the '80s. But whereas Reagan piled up debt during an economic recovery, Clinton actually found ways to cut debt.

Most of the posts in this thread and the "worst president" thread are pretty much partisan posts to go along with partisan votes and justifications on why their "side" is better than the other. Pretty much mirrors politics in general these days to be honest.

Would be interesting if someone had spare time to see what the vote counts of the people who didn't choose along party lines would be. (ie: they voted a democrats as both best and worst, or Republicans as both best and worst). Both sides realistically have solid choices for both best and worst presidents, would just be an interesting figure.

I don't think so. I more or less voted Clinton by default because I don't think we've had good Presidents in some time. Clinton didn't fuck much up which gives him the nod, although I think you can make a strong case for H.W. in that same vain.

And those that believe in conservative fiscal spending yet tend be socially liberal?

I chose Clinton by default. I'm not a democrat (or republican for that matter), but wasn't going to pick Obama, or the Bushies. I was alive for Reagan, but was too young to be aware of things happening at that time, so did not consider him for that reason.

In my opinion, the difference between the recession of 1989-1991 and the boom of 1995-2000 was considerably more significant.

Sure the 70s had gas lines and stagflation, but I remember a considerably worry at the end of the 80s that everything that had been improved in the previous decade was going to be lost. And then say what you want about the ephemeral nature of the dot-com boom, but at least part of the boom in the late 90s was the catapulting of the American economy into the forefront of innovation (specifically the relentless commercialization of innovation - which is a good thing), the birth of the "knowledge" economy, and true globalization taking off. In my opinion these changes were more significant than the birth of conspicuous consumption in the 80s.


Actually, I view Clinton's first two years as his least effective. Heck, his first month in specific was hilariously bad. In his first two years he managed the dubious feat of both overreaching with policy initiatives and then failing to support them well enough in the tactical political arena to get anything to happen.

Of the choices, I'm tempted to pick Eisenhower, but he's not in my lifetime.

I can't pick Obama because his record is really too short at this point, and we haven't had enough time to really look at the results of what he's done (or is going to do).

So yes, it probably comes down to Reagan and Clinton. Of course, it also comes down to how you define "best".

Best in pushing through his specific agenda may actually be Bush II. He had specific stuff he believed in, and he made it happen until he finally lost support and became a lame duck.

Best politician? Probably Reagan, for many of the elements already noted by others. Reagan simply had no equal for being able to get a lot of people behind his vision. Part of why he still resonates is that this was exactly what the country needed when he was first elected.

Best at manipulating the legislative process? LBJ, by a mile. Best in foreign affairs? Probably Nixon, given all the behind the scenes stuff he & Kissinger did that kept detente alive when it needed to be alive.

Then there's Clinton. Of these, probably the best in doing what he could with what he was given, from a political and practical standpoint. After the debacle of his first two years, Clinton used the power of his office where he could (chiefly in foreign policy) and nudged here and there domestically, most importantly not getting in the way of the boom economy.

I've always thought when reading the Constitution, that what the Founders intended of the President was a leader for foreign affairs and a person who would manage the government, but not necessarily lead it legislatively, which is, of course, the purpose of the Legislative Branch. We've gotten very far from this, with each new President expected to bring some sort of legislative agenda to their Presidency.

Maybe that's the way it has to work these days, because Congress is so dysfunctional. But regardless, in this context perhaps Clinton (of the choices) is the best President.

So anyway, I think I'll decline to vote. I can make an argument for many of these as the "best" President, so it's perhaps best to pick none.

Accidentally voted for GW. Meant to vote for Clinton.

I voted for Clinton as the best president and Obama as the worst. What does that make me*?

*I was born in '84

I don't really understand either of these threads. They are supposed to be about things that happened in our lifetimes that we personally experienced and can post some personal anecdotes and instead we are posting about things that happened when we were 10 or sometimes something that happened before we were born. I think I am around the median age for this board and Reagan was basically when I was in K-8th grade. Some of you guys are older than me and maybe were in high school or college but without doing a person by person search some of you guys are talking about Reagan's policies that you lived through at age 3!

Next up thread: Best team you have ever seen.

Panerd: "The 1927 yankees"

Agreed which is why like I said I didn't consider Reagan.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but the prosecutions during W's reign proved pretty conclusively that Clinton's "wonderful economy" was based on fabricated earnings and funny money. It all came crashing down and we're still dealing with the fallout.

I'm just saying that if we went person to person on either thread of people who voted for Reagan we will kind both have large numbers of people that were like 5 years old when he was president. And if that is the case then why not just make the thread generic: Democrat or Republican?

Or better yet: Who was president when you were a kid and how did your parent's feel about him? My parents loved Reagan, I was a kid, so Reagan was shown to me as a great man.

All of it was based on fabrications and funny money? That is a pretty bold accusation to make.

A lot of it was money created via the stock market boom, which was based on inflated earnings from a number of companies (Enron was only one, and lots were found to be fudging numbers in a not-quite-as-illegal way), and when the earnings fraud was uncovered the market took a nosedive and wiped out most of it as things returned to what actual money was there. Do you remember how many retirement accounts were wiped out because of Enron alone?

The retirement accounts that were wiped out by Enron were overwhelmingly those of Enron employees, where their entire account was tied to Enron stock.

A lot of the dotcom stock market boom wasn't due to Enron-style fraud, or cooking the books. Rather it was due to irrational ideas that new companies should gain market share at what ever cost, and the riches would flow from there. That led to the massive over-valuing of companies that inevitably had to come down.

Replace "wonderful economy" with "wonderful stock market" and I'd agree with you. But as I tried to point out, there were a lot of positive economic developments in the late 90s that still bear fruit today, such as globalization, the knowledge economy, and the ability of the U.S. to relentlessly commercialize innovation.

I mean, take a look at your industry for example, Greg. Wouldn't you see the 90s, and the late 90s in specific as the catalyst years for your industry that took it from a niche industry to a heavy component of the overall entertainment industry?

Ecommerce was basically invented in the late 90s. We can laugh at pets.com, but I'm more talking about Amazon. Apple's success now is based on innovations made in the late 90s.

I don't want to overstate this, and I take your point that irrational exuberance over the stock market artificially inflates how much "real" growth there was, but I really do feel that the 2nd half of that decade really provided a catalyst for success we have had, and will have, in this century (or at least the first half).