The Worst Presidents

I have been wanting to do a post about the worse president….there should be some interesting opinions…..anyway….onward.

Just a few days after the 2018 Mid-Terms and the election got me to think about who were the worst presidents….

Who are the worst presidents we have had?  I am sure that we all have our ideas who should make this list…..but There is a list put forth by true historians and why they are the worse.

Repubs will think Carter or Obama and maybe Clinton (why would they dislike the president that made the GOP the party it is today?)….for Dems they could be thinking Reagan……and these days you can imagine who would be on the list……well they are not on the list!

How do you determine who the worst presidents in U.S. history are? Asking some of the most notable presidential historians is a good place to start. In 2017, C-SPAN issued their third in-depth survey of presidential historians, asking them to identify the nation’s worst presidents and discuss why.

For this survey, C-SPAN consulted 91 leading presidential historians, asking them to rank the United States’ leaders on 10 leadership characteristics. Those criteria include a president’s legislative skills, his relations with Congress, performance during crises, with allowances for historical context.

Over the course of the three surveys, released in 2000 and 2009, some of the rankings have changed, but the three worst presidents have remained the same, according to historians. Who were they? The results just might surprise you!

https://www.thoughtco.com/worst-american-presidents-721460

I agree there are some that should be on this list and I bet we would not agree on the names……but if you look at the facts (real ones not the ones that FOX will spread) these are truly some of the worse presidents we have had…..and we could do worse….and possibly we may have already.

Just a thought!

Turn The Page!

5 Greatest Foreign Policy Presidents

Yep my friends that time again…..Professor’s Classroom is in session.

This time we will talk about the best foreign policy presidents in our history.

The American Conservative rates the best foreign policy presidents, the 5 best, now I do not agree and will explain why after you read the article…..

The American president is the individual primarily responsible for the United States’ foreign policy. While the president divvies up domestic issues with Congress and the states, the Constitution gives the president broad power to command the armed forces, make treaties, and appoint diplomats. Furthermore, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president can deploy troops for up to 60 days without congressional approval.

In this author’s view, a good foreign policy is one that serves America’s interests, that is, the security of the nation and the prosperity of its people, and a good American foreign policy president is one who understanding this, acts according, rather than pursuing idealistic fantasies. America’s interests change in different times and places, so realism means different things to different presidents, and encompasses a broad range of policies. But realism does not mean an open-ended war on a strategy, terrorism, nor does it mean constant interventionism aimed at changing the domestic institutions of other countries. Of course, the United States can still serve as an exemplar for other countries.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-five-best-u-s-foreign-policy-presidents/

I disagree on several levels….Lincoln had no foreign policy to speak of, TR was good tactician but not in foreign policy and Nixon should be eliminated because of Vietnam if for on other reason.

I think that FDR should be there while I may not agree with some of his decisions he still had foreign policy chops……lastly I think Carter should be on that list….yes he had some set backs with the Iranian situation…he is the closest that peace has ever been in the Holy Land….who knows what would have happened if he had been re-elected.

That is my take on the best foreign policy presidents….would you care to take a stab at it?

The Real Pres. McKinley

Note:  I have a habit of writing posts and putting them in my drafts and from time to time I have more drafts than I need….I use them for when circumstance takes me away from my ‘puter and I still need to post…..as of now I have 36 drafts in waiting so I will be posting more than my usual 5-6 posts per day…..sorry for the extra reading but these are things that need to be posted.  Thanx for your understanding.

Time again for the old professor’s classroom ( heavy sighs heard in the back of the room) and a look at an American president that most know very little about other than he was assassinated…there is so much more to McKinley’s presidency than his death…..

William McKinley was the 25th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination on September 14, 1901, after leading the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War and raising protective tariffs to promote American industry.

At the 1896 Republican Convention, in time of depression, the wealthy Cleveland businessman Marcus Alonzo Hanna ensured the nomination of his friend William McKinley as “the advance agent of prosperity.” The Democrats, advocating the “free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold”–which would have mildly inflated the currency–nominated William Jennings Bryan.

While Hanna used large contributions from eastern Republicans (some things never change within the GOP) frightened by Bryan’s views on silver, McKinley met delegations on his front porch in Canton, Ohio. He won by the largest majority of popular votes since 1872.

The American Conservative takes a long look at the presidency of McKinley……

What’s wrong with the Roosevelts? What’s wrong is their shadow. The spotlight of history shines so brightly on Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt that most other presidents, especially conservative presidents, end up in semi-darkness. Whatever these interstitial figures gave the nation gets likewise obscured. While the Roosevelts tapdance across history’s stage, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and, of course, Herbert Hoover get locked backstage in a cabinet of “flawed figures.”

What’s more, with each passing year, the Roosevelt shadow deepens. McKinley, especially, is practically forgotten. Sometimes, the obscuring of these presidents is intentional; sometimes half-intentional. Whatever respect President Barack Obama demonstrated to Native Americans when he replaced the title of Alaska’s mighty Mount McKinley with the Native American name, Denali, the president was also doing his bit to intensify the obscurity of non-Roosevelts.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-probing-new-look-at-the-real-mckinley/

McKinley was so much more than his assassination….and now you know more than the person sitting next to you….ain’t history grand?

The Mensa Bowl It Ain’t!

There are times when I ask the sanity or at least the intelligence of our politicians……I mean listen to the crap flying out of the mouths of idiots….and NO I am not speaking solely of the GOP…the Dems are just as guilty as anyone…..is it a plan to be speaking obscurities or is it just a lack of mental power?  Or maybe it is a lack of mental discipline?

Doug Hanchard writing for ZDNet………

Are we getting the best bang for the buck from our elected officials? Do existing politicians have the smarts we need to run the country? Would an IQ test raise the bar and attract better candidates to hold office? The answer to those questions and others is unclear and if any recent testing is any indication of what we witness may surprise you.

An accurate and repeatable result isn’t proof in the pudding and while IQ tests may rate an individual intelligence, it is a poor barometer to gauge one’s ability to be an elected official. President Obama (who’s well educated) in his State of the Union speech stated that funding education is a priority. In recent years, there has also been a demand by state and provincial governments, that teachers should also be better educated and tested regularly.  Some would argue that we need to do the same with our elected officials since many would suggest that we have some very …fill in the blank… elected people governing. Is this an argument to suggest we need smarter elected officials? Would an IQ test be a good litmus test?

Personally, I think they should…..or at least be given a civics test to see if they realize what it means to be a citizen of the greatest country on earth……I tire of all the freedom talk and inaction….. they are pissing all over people’s freedoms/rights.  I do not agree with everything the Dems are saying and doing and I definitely do not approve of the policies that most Repubs are pursuing……I realize that according to the Constitution the majority gets to name the game to be played in Washington….but should not the people we send to Washington be working on what is best for the people of the country and leave all privacy issues to the privacy of the person’s discretion?

In a time when millions are unemployed and millions more struggling to exist………I believe there are more important issues to focus on than what a woman does with her vagina or a new name for a Post office  or who shot who and why…..our Congress is polling at about 8% approval….my question is who are this 8%?  My guess would be lobbyists and their staff and the Congress and theirs……..everybody else seems to think that they are a bunch of do nothing clowns……

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the GOP loses the 2012 general….will there be a re-calibration of the party and will it keep plugging along as it is doing today?

These people we have elected are NOT doing the job they were sent to Washington to do….then why do we keep electing the same or the same-like people time after time?

It’s August Madness!

Daily Agitator

You have heard of “March Madness”…you know when b/ball nuts go ape shit?  Well….welcome to August Madness!

This is the time of year when morons and imbeciles go crazy.  The time of year when Congress is on one of their many breaks and the Prez is on vacation and the political news is a bit thin.

So the internet conspiracists, whackos, hate merchants and total goof balls hit the air ways knowing that they can get some much coveted media attention.  Whereas, if the politicians were actually working at their jobs then these idiots would be mostly ignored or ridiculed for the morons they really are.

This silliness will end when the overpaid and under worked representatives return to Washington to actually pretend that they are doing the business of the country.  This unfortunate happening occurs every year and as each year comes about the silliness gets more and more pathetic.  The really sad part is that some of the Congress actually buy into the craziness and then return to Washington like all is well and that they were just supporting the people.  HA!

This Is How To Kill Bi-Partisanship

First of all…HaHaHaHaha!….and just when was this gonna occur?

Stop!  Stop!  My side is hurting…I need a moment to gather myself!

Okay…better now……

“I must say I’m disappointed,” Senate Minority Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “After two months, the president has not governed in the middle as I had hoped he would. But it’s not too late. He’s only been in office a couple of months. Still before him are the opportunities to deal with us on a truly bipartisan basis,” the Republican told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

I was just wondering when the GOP was planning to do the bi-partisan thing, so far all the NOs have not been anywhere close to the concept.

Now the Repubs are warning that bi-partisanship is once again in danger.  A congressional tactic described as a “freight train” to run over the minority party could derail any hopes of bipartisanship with the Obama administration, some Republicans warn.

“Reconciliation” is a procedure that could put some of President Obama’s major initiatives, such as overhauling health care, on the fast track to becoming law if lawmakers adopt it in their budget resolution.

The process would allow senators to cut off debate on some legislation with 51 votes — a simple majority — instead of the 60 usually required.

Senate Republicans said they worry the process effectively could silence any voice they have in negotiations since Democrats would not need their votes to move ahead with Obama’s agenda. (The Democrats have 58 votes, including two independents, and Republicans have 41.)

Would this be the same tactic used during the Bush admin to get around the Dems at the time?  Did not seem to be much bi-partisanship concern in those days.  Funny how being in a minority will strengthen the desire for a more bi-partisan approach to governing.

Sorry, I digress.  The Repubs cannot blame the President or the Dems for killing bi-partisanship, they have done all they could to see that it has died since January of this year.  It is more like that they have their jaws outta joint because they are no longer relevant to the governing of the country.  And the more they say NO they less relevant they become.  The more they blame the president the more they look pathetic.

Vote Nader?

For more than four decades, Ralph Nader has saved lives, opened minds, implemented solutions, and inspired citizens everywhere to participate in building a better, more democratic world. He has founded or organized more than 100 civic organizations, authored countless books and publications, and perhaps more than any other person has defined our modern understanding of the American ideals of democracy, civic duty, and participation for the public good, rather than dominance by the corporate powers. Known for his ethics, integrity and independence, Ralph Nader is recognized world-wide for putting democracy to work.

What is less well known is that in his 2000 bid for President of the United States, Ralph Nader earned the votes of citizens across the political spectrum. Under the banner, ‘Not for Sale’, millions responded to Nader’s message to the American people calling for greater accountability for corporations and an end to corporate-controlled government. According to the exit polls conducted by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, fully 25% of his votes came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the remainder from people who would not have voted. No other American leader can be credited with such broad appeal across the divides of our polarized nation. No other American leader can claim such unfettered independence from the ethically bankrupt quagmire of insider politics where the lives of ordinary Americans are regularly sacrificed to commercial interests.

To his credit, Ralph Nader does more than just talk. As the New York Times said, “What sets Nader apart is that he has moved beyond social criticism to effective political action.” Part of his mammoth legacy is the effective national network of citizen reform groups that labor to preserve the safety and quality of life of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. His groups have made an imprint on many areas including civic skills, tax reform, pensions, aviation, regulation of atomic power, renewable energy, clean air and water, clean elections, food, medicine and auto safety, safety in the workplace, access to healthcare, civil rights, civil justice, Congressional ethics, campaign finance, discriminatory lending, the tobacco industry, corporate crime and reform, investor protection, corporate globalization, agribusiness and small farms, intellectual property, medicine prices abroad, freedom of information, and government procurement. The list goes on and on.

Once again, Ralph Nader is standing up for all Americans, proposing brighter solutions and futures while decrying the big government erosion of civil liberties, the vast diversion of tax dollars for wasteful military spending, the Iraq quagmire, and the daily abuses and frauds suffered by ordinary Americans at the hands of corrupt corporations and indifferent bureaucracies. The campaign is seeking participators, to invoke Jefferson’s word, who support his independent campaign for the office of President of the United States.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, author, and has been named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential Americans in the Twentieth Century.

For over four decades Ralph Nader has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups to advocate for solutions.

His efforts have helped to create a framework of laws, regulatory agencies, and federal standards that have improved the quality of life for two generations of Americans.

His groups were instrumental in enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In the past decade, Nader has dedicated himself to putting people back in charge of America’s democracy, launching three major presidential campaigns.

Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments.

The Next President

Back in June I did a post on what the next president would be facing, unfortunately I was mistaken in some areas for the economy had not gone into the toilet yet.

November 4th, the next president will be chosen by the American people (actually the electoral college, but believe what you will) and he will immediately be confronted with a wealth of problems that need immediate attention.

He will face 2 wars, the worst economy since 1930, a growing deficit, job losses, energy independence, a crumbling infrastructure and the list goes on and on, those were the immediate problems that must be faced.

US President George W. Bush’s successor inherits a world of troubles come January, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a defiant Iran, and a US economy battered by the global financial crisis.

The new president will take the reins of a limping superpower facing deep doubts overseas about the limits of its strength, and sharply diminished US standing even among Washington’s closest friends, recent studies find.

If these cannot be handled and handled quickly, then our next president will most likely be a ONE term president.  He will be held responsible for everything that occurs within those 4 years, no matter where they originated.

Now the question will be, will the Congress work with the new president or will they just be a hinderance?  Will a democratic Congress be willing to change things?  Or will they like the status quo?  IMO, there are a lot of “Blue Dog” Democrats in the Congress, I do not see them helping the Obama presidency much.

“America’s moral leadership and decision-making competence will continue to be questioned at home and abroad, despite the arrival of new leadership in Washington,” a Georgetown University working group said earlier this year.

Bush leaves a mountain of unfinished business. Barring perhaps unimaginable breakthroughs, it will fall to one of his successors to end the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, herald the end of nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and celebrate a lasting peace deal in the Middle East.

And the next president will certainly inherit a grim economy — the White House this week predicted a sharp rise in unemployment, while some private-sector forecasts warn of a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009.

The new president will likely face difficult decisions on Iraq. Recent US public opinion polls reveal new optimism amid decreased violence there, but most Americans still want US troops to come home as soon as possible.

The new president will also inherit Iran’s defiance of international pressure over its suspect nuclear program and a fragile six-country deal making ginger progress towards ending North Korea’s atomic weapons ambitions.

Other headaches include Washington’s chilly ties with Moscow — their worst since the Cold War — as well as relations with Pakistan which have tensed over suspected US strikes at extremists along the border with Afghanistan.

How About A Split Ticket?

This brings up an important question: Why are voters denied the chance to vote for a president of one party and a vice president of the other? After all, voters often split their votes in other ways: between a president of one party and a House member or senator of the other; between federal representatives of one party and state representatives of the other. Why not let voters consider making Biden’s offhand comment during the primaries this spring — that he could envision serving as John McCain’s vice president — a reality?

In fact, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in federal election law requires that voters in each state must choose between unified president/vice president party tickets. In early American history, the men serving in the top and second jobs came from opposing parties. In 1796, Thomas Jefferson served as John Adams’ vice president, even though the two bitter rivals represented and headed opposing parties. At the time, some even thought a “split” executive promoted checks and balances and was thus something to be embraced, not lamented.
For example, almost every state awards its electoral college votes on a winner-take-all basis rather than proportionally. So, if Barack Obama wins California 55% to 45%, he still gets 100% of the state’s electoral college votes — the biggest possible reward for taking California’s concerns and issues seriously during the campaign and in the future. Those few states that allocate electors proportionately are at a competitive disadvantage relative to the others.

But states could stop tying the vice president into the deal without changing the winner-take-all approach, so there wouldn’t be obvious harm to their relative influence. And even if a president resented serving with a vice president from an opposing party, why not leave it up to the voters whether to take that risk or avoid it, as they already do in deciding whether to split their tickets in other ways?

This suspiciously sounds like the now defunct Unity 08.  I am sure the the LA Times knew that already when they wrote the opinion piece.

The Oil Mirage

I was sent this post in an email from a friend in New York.

If gasoline were selling for $2 a gallon today, President Bush’s decision to lift the ban on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts most likely would have caused an uproar. But with gasoline at more than $4 a gallon, and seemingly rising every day, the response to Mr. Bush’s directive has been muted at best. At worst, it is drawing support from various circles, including Congress, as lawmakers react to the growing public alarm over energy costs.

But this is a time for responsible leadership, and Congress must rise to the occasion. It’s one thing for Mr. Bush to seize an opportunity to open more acreage to the oil companies. He’s been pro-exploration from the moment he entered the Oval Office. But it’s quite another for responsible members of Congress to start wavering on the issue of offshore drilling out of fear of voter backlash at home. They need to stand firm.

Increasing the supply of domestic oil is, at best, a feeble solution to a global energy crisis. Under Mr. Bush’s plan, oil companies would be able to drill for an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil pinpointed in areas now off limits to drilling. But even if such a rich source materialized and were tapped, there is no guarantee the oil would flow to the U.S. market. Instead, it would become part of the global oil supply and subject to the price fluctuations of global demand. Assuming there is no let-up in demand by China and India, the impact on prices would be minimal at best. Meanwhile, the U.S. coastal landscape would be degraded.

If only some lawmakers would talk bluntly about this issue. If only some of them would dare to say that even though $4-a-gallon gasoline is a burden on most family budgets, it is, in its own way, a blessing as well. The higher cost of fuel has made Americans more conservation conscious. It has all but driven the gas-guzzling SUV into extinction. It has increased ridership on mass transit systems. It has made cities more attractive for workers to live in, and the suburbs, along with their daily commutes, less attractive. If that trend continues, suburban and ex-urban sprawl may at last be curbed.

Then there are the health benefits. If Americans drive less and burn less fuel, the air will be cleaner and there will be fewer respiratory ailments. And there are economic benefits. Fewer cars means less wear and tear on the infrastructure, and thus less cost for maintenance and repair.

Congress can make these points, and more, by refusing to go along with Mr. Bush and lift the drilling moratorium. That is to say, Congress must act responsibly even if Mr. Bush refuses to do so.