Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

10 most negative presidents ever

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 08:53 PM
Original message
10 most negative presidents ever
not neccesarily the worst, but rather the 10 that did the most damage. Ignore their positive accomplishemnts.

I'll have to say:

1-The Illegitimate Idiot Son of an Asshole
2-Reagan
3-LBJ
4-Jackson
5-Buchanan
6-Nixon
7-Wilson
8-Hoover
9-Coolidge
10-Harding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fenris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ahem. P-O-L-K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. what's his great damage?
if you say expansionism by conquest is damage, well, no argument there. certainly he was bad for the mexicans, e.g.

but for the u.s., all that expansionism seems to have worked out well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pierce
Edited on Wed Jun-16-04 08:58 PM by RatTerrier
Son died tragically while he was in office.

The White House was said to be a very depressing place during the term of Franklin Pierce.

Good list, but I wouldn't have LBJ so high up. Granted, he pushed Vietnam hard, but he did a lot for civil rights and poverty while in office.

And he was a good example of a take-no-shit, ass-stomping Democrat, something we need more of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progdonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. slavery
Don't forget that Pierce was also the only avowed slavery apologist to hold the office (especially strange considering he was from New England).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't forget Bush I...
A thousand points of light my ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrocks Donating Member (846 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. I would put Nixon in Jackson's place
and move Hoover to LBJ-Remove Wilson-I don't think he was that bad-maybe replace Wilson with Grant? Great post-gets you thinking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Allow Me to ReArrange Your List, Please?
1-Nixon
2-The Illegitimate Idiot Son of an Asshole
3-Reagan
4-Hoover
5-Harding
6-Coolidge
7-How 'bout the ASSHOLE Hisself?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thinking of only the recent big three
...(Nixon, Reagan and Bush2) it's a tough call. Nixon ended public faith in government and that's a prerequisite of despotism. Reagan did extraordinary damage and deep-seated lasting damage... the fact that we just had to watch a week of adulation shows just how insidious his corruption of America was. Bush is about the lowest creature I've ever seen in politics at any level but he's not looking as effective as his hideous predecessors. It's easy to split the country 50-50. The trick is splitting the country 58%-42% and being on the 58% side.

So we'll see how the chimp does. If Bush wins in 2004 then he's the worst thing that's ever happened to this country since at least the Civil War, but since he's not winning right now I'd say Reagan first with Bush2 and Nixon tied for second.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ochazuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Dittos
Glad to see Jackson on your list, because the "judgement of history" is that he's "great" or "near great". Just for defying the supreme court and causing the Trail of Tears, he should be ranked as a Class A Criminal President and removed from the twenty dollar bill.

Polk is bad for the same reason historians say he's good: "he doubled the size of the country". Yeah, right: Living space for the white people. The war against Mexico is one of the great sins of our nation.

And poppy Bush should be considered because he (again, opposite of what historians say) did such an AWFUL job in Iraq (led Saddam to invade Kuwait when a few words of warning would have stopped him, then fertilized the growth of al Qaeda and at the same time screwed over the Iraqi people.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. what about ford?
by and large i respect him, think he's a decent man, and his tenure was relatively innocuous. but he let inflation flourish (all he did was distribute 'whip inflation now' buttons) even though carter wound up with the blame. and, of course, he pardoned nixon.

i'm almost of a mind to say the pardon was worse than the crime. i mean, it's one thing for a president to commit high crimes and misdemeanors and be forced to resign. but it's quite another thing to shield the crook from further investigation and punishment.

and this is no theoretical complaint. i think the criminal scandals under reagan and shrub especially are the logical consequence of ford having created the precedent that criminal activity in office can at worst cost your job.

the lesson of watergate SHOULD have been that no one is above the law, and it should have led to GREATER compliance among white house employees. but it didn't, and we have ford's pardon of nixon to blame for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happynewyear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. Taft, one of the very worst
and Harding was no sweetheart either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. Based on "bad things"
Edited on Wed Jun-16-04 09:48 PM by happyslug
Where is John Adams? He passed the Alien and Sedition acts, some of the worse violation of Civil Liberties the world has ever seen.

Grover Cleveland and his suppression of the Various Strikes by US Troops during his Second term?

McKinley and his increase of the tariff and invasion of Cuba?

My list:
1. Bush Jr - No explanation needed
2. Bush Sr - His invasion of Iraq upset a very balanced applecart in the Mid-East. Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but he was more than willing to sell oil to us at the price we wanted (He just wanted to sell Kuwaiti oil in addition to Iraqi oil). That movement started the road to 911 and the War on Terrorism
3. Reagan, Firing Patco (Killing labor unions for the last 20 years), pushing deregulation (Forcing wages down), increase immigration (To keep wages down). Yes Reagan as the first President to carry a union Card was the most Anti-labor President we have ever had. Before I go one lets us no forget Nicaragua and the Development of Al Queda.
4. Nixon, who can forget his wage and price controls, his refusal to continue Johnson's income tax (which Johnson used to Balance the Budget in 1969). Watergate etc.
5. John Adams, the Alien and Sedition acts are enough alone.

There is something about these four that stand above the rest. Maybe it is the lack of good things to come from them or maybe it is the lack of a political reason to do so (For Example Johnson involvement in Vietnam can best to explained as his trying to prevent the lost of Vietnam from being used against him by the GOP, if you understand the time period a very good political reason, something lacking in the above actions of the above Presidents).

6. Cleveland. While A Democrat, his anti-Strike actions during his Second term puts him close to the above.

7. Buchanan - Going to war with the Mormons hoping that would unite the Country - letting Kansas bled rather than risk Civil War. Using the Dred Scott Case to try to prevent any split over Slavery.

8. Hayes and his decision to end Reconstruction in the South, along with failure to address the problems of the Workers that flared up in the General Strike of 1877.

9. Wilson and his decision to segregate the Federal Government in addition to going to War in WWI when it really was not in the best interest of the US to do so.

10. McKinley and his increase in the Traiff (Increasing costs to Americans, his refusal to adopt Silver (Thus increasing Inflation which was needed at that point his history) and his War with Spain that was unneeded for Spain was willing to agree to our terms without a War.


Yes I did not include Jackson and his trail of Tears for several reasons, first the Trail of Tears occurred during his Successor's term of office not his. Second, he had told the Cherokees to move for he could NOT prevent the Georgie Militia from removing them and third, his decision that the best way to solve the problem was to remove the Cherokees while harsh was the best solution he had. He had no troops to stop Georgia, the Railroads would not be completed till the 1850s so even if he could raise the troops he could neither supply them nor get them to Georgia. The trail of Tears was a disaster caused by Georgia but everyone else had to endure the price or take the blame.

As to Coolidge, Hoover and Harding, all three did very little for or against the Country. Harding may have been corrupt but he did very little harm (he even pardon Debs). Unlike today's GOP Hoover and Coolidge just did not want to do anything, either good or bad.

LBJ's bad moves (Vietnam) was dictated by Domestic Politics. If he had left Vietnam fall he would have been facing headlines saying he "Lost Vietnam" just like Truman had been attacked for "losing China" 20 years before. Neither President lost anything, each country fell do to their own leadership's failures but our Right wing was NOT going to let facts interfere with their attacks.

Remember this is a list of BAD PRESIDENT IGNORING ANY GOOD THEIR DID. Not always a easy thing to do for sometime to get something good done you have to agree to something bad (For example LBJ's Great Society Program came at the cost of Vietnam). Politics is the art of the Possible not the ideal.

Another Example was Jackson paying the price for the use of the Georgia Militia as a threat during the Nullification Crisis of 1828 (Where South Carolina voted to "Nullify" the Federal Tariff so it could not be collected in South Carolina). It was NOT the threat of Federal Troops that forced South Carolina to back down but the Threat of the Georgia, North Carolina and Tennesee Militia. All three later involved with taking the Cherokee's lands. Jackson made a Choice, he decided Unity of the United States was more important than a Treaty. Without those troops he could not face down South Carolina. The price of those troops was the Cherokee's lands. I am not defending his decision but I understand the choice he made (an easier choice than I am making here for he throught of nothing of stealing Indian's land, but he did not want to see women and children die either).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. If we're ignoring positives,
doesn't Lincoln have to be number one on every list.

600,000 deaths and shredding the Constitution have to be good for plenty of damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That is why you have to look at WHY the evil was done
And in Lincoln's case the lost of Unity of the United States would have lead to two hostile countries arguing over one River and Port (the Mississippi and New Orleans). Given that situation would Civil Liberties have survived long in either country? Dispute and warfare would have occurred sooner or later just over the Mississippi and New Orleans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. That's fine but
that's not the question the original poster asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. True but I can differentiate between the two
First why was the evil done? If it was for political Necessity I can understand it easier than if they was no Political reason for it. Thus LBJ's Vietnam and Lincoln's war acts while bad are NOT in the same class of evil as Nixon and Reagan's attacks on the rights of the Working class. The difference may appear minor to some, but it is the difference between someone having to make a choice between two bad options and someone choosing to do evil (Even if he thinks it is right).

Whole Religions have been built on this difference for the difference is huge and one that I can Not ignore is weighing the evils done by People.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC