GameBanshee Forums

Okay, same deal as the best presidents thread. Two weeks to vote.

Ulysses S. Grant

Although there is much negative about G.W. Bush's presidency, IMHO I think we should wait until we get farther down the road before we call him the worst since he is still in office. I voted for Grant as just about every historical reference I have read goes on and on about the corruption (at all level of government), graft, and pork barrel politics that were rampant during his administration. We live with Bush in the present and since we didn't live during Grant's administration, it is hard to put our minds in a frame of reference based on 135 years. Many of our current laws and policy came about as corrective actions for abuses during Grant's administration. The only positive thing I can recall offhand from his terms is the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad (which depending on your point of view could be tainted as some would say that was just an appeasement to the railroads who wielded a very powerful lobby).

It was an appeasement to the railroads, but IMO that doesn't make it a bad thing. It's a peculiar thing, but even the most corrupt and evil can do things that are good.

I completely agree that it was a good thing in the end, even if the original motive was appeasement. It is just sad that that is the only positive thing I can recall from Grant's time in office. I may have to dust off my college history books and look back at that time period again. Not that I would change my vote, I still think he was our worst by far.

I totally missed several candidates on this thing. I lost my spreadsheet that had the nominations. I think I missed some. If someone wants to validate that, I'd appreciate it.

Bush. He is damaging the world, and the US reputation in the world.

None of the others managed that on such a huge scale. Dammit - we've forgotten half of 'em.
At least Bush is building a rep that will last.

Jackson. At least Bush's intelligence is in question. Jackson was just on evil, bigotted man, no doubt about it.

I'm convinced it's impossible to designate a "worst" leader, since so many factors need to be considered. I might be inclined to split my vote among Dubya, Harding, and Jackson, if that were possible; certainly Dubya's the worst all-around president, having introduced a range of inter-governmental, national, and international policies on all levels (diplomatic, military, economic, structural, etc) that are among the worst ever pursued by the US in over 100 years. But Jackson was a xenophobic bigot, as Mags points out, and an egomaniac whose closure of the Bank of America (because he wanted direct control of economic policy, and didn't understand how capitalist markets worked) caused a string of panics over the next 50 years. Finally, Harding's administration had the most venal bunch of rogues assembled in any cabinet prior to Reagan's, and took no steps to offset the boom side of an economic swing based on stock speculation, despite textbook instances of what would inevitably follow.

Let us not forget Bush's utter disregard for what anyone thinks. Not his party, the rest of congress, the nation, the world. No one. Not that a president should be a slave to the polls, but come on!! I didn't vote for him though. I picked Jackson after much deliberation. Dubya's pretty bad, but genocide isn't on his list.. yet.

One Word.Bill Clinton.

Nah! Clinton was one of your better presidents! :laugh:

Bush is pure power-hungry imbecile. And he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world. I thought it was scary when you elected him. It's more than scary now.
And we have Tony Blair. :speech:

*retreats, sobbing hysterically*

:mischief:

Nearly everyone who leads a super-power is power hungry. It's the nature of the game. The job's just too intolerable if you do it for any other reason.

See the W is a moron thread on whether he's an imbecile or not.

Having Bush on the list is like saying you are picking the superbowl champion after 10 games. He has not served his time yet. Plenty of time to achieve world peace, cure cancer and repel alien invaders from Tao Ceti. A good question would be, what would have to happen in the next two years and in the next 15 years for Bushophobes to change their minds.
I voted for LBJ

Although I am not a GWB fan Dowaco,
I agree with you about

Having Bush on the list is like saying you are picking the superbowl champion after 10 games. He has not served his time yet.

Good analogy, it is too easy to pick someone presently in office and we hear about on an almost daily basis. Far better to wait until afterwards and see their "total" track record. Two years is a lot of time and quite a bit "can" change in that long a period. Not that it necessarily will but I feel you have to at least give it a chance.

You guys are right, of course. Some of the things we gripe about will seem totally petty in the near future. For instance: Domestic wiretapping will seem laid back when we have to be sure to smile while facing the TV.

jopperm2 wrote:You guys are right, of course. Some of the things we gripe about will seem totally petty in the near future. For instance: Domestic wiretapping will seem laid back when we have to be sure to smile while facing the TV.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Nice one!

Dowaco wrote:Having Bush on the list is like saying you are picking the superbowl champion after 10 games. He has not served his time yet. Plenty of time to achieve world peace, cure cancer and repel alien invaders from Tao Ceti. A good question would be, what would have to happen in the next two years and in the next 15 years for Bushophobes to change their minds.
I voted for LBJ

You can easily judge somebody who's still in office on past track records.
If he indeed cures cancer or achive world peace then many peoples opinions of him will change at that time, but so far he has not done any of thoese things. So to say that you can't judge his current presidency which have lasted a good number of years so far because he "might" do something "good" is simply and plainly wrong - you not only can, you infact should.
Speculations about what a person might do in the future does not in current time speak about what they have actually achived. That is a "speculation" which can only become valid in the excat time they perform such actions and not something which can be a mediating factor.

Not judging someone until all their accomplishments are known and digested in the cold light of historical context is the only fair way to do this.

Some of the actions Bush has taken that his detractors label as "bad" may well turn out to be "insightful", "inspired" or perhaps only "well intentioned" when history books are written in 2025.
On the other hand if Bush's policies bring the country and the world to a worse place in 15 years, by all means place him on the list.

My experience is that young people tend to dislike conservatives because they (young people) are rebellious by nature, and presidents who lead the country during a time of war (beacuse they might have to serve in a dangerous place). Sitting presidents are the barb of endless jokes from comedians and relentless scrutiny by the press. That's a foul tip and three strikes when taking a popularity poll on the internet.

Dowaco wrote:Not judging someone until all their accomplishments are known and digested in the cold light of historical context is the only fair way to do this.

Some of the actions Bush has taken that his detractors label as "bad" may well turn out to be "insightful", "inspired" or perhaps only "well intentioned" when history books are written in 2025.
On the other hand if Bush's policies bring the country and the world to a worse place in 15 years, by all means place him on the list.
<snip>

No it is not. People are accountable for their actions when they take them as well. Granted you do not know all the long term effects of every decision, and thus you can change your opinion later in history if feeling the need for it.

However if you give people, basically, a "carte blanche" to perform what ever they want withouth accountability until "after" their term (in case of presidents) then you can never ever question or citique a president while in office and thus take away one of the fundamentals of democracies, namely that to be critical and voice that critique.
And where do we draw the line at this "carte blance"? When do we question our leaders, if ever?

Actions carries consequences, even for presidents, and while history might be revisited once the full effects of a presidency is known, you should never - ever - simply accept,or not critique, what goes on simply because you do not know the 15-year effect. .

Officials may be reelected, dismissed from, or removed from office based on their performance--hence, it is implied that performance in a political office is suitable for consideration, and even for legal action. No office is exempt, and only the exceptionally bad performance of Dubya has led his most zealous followers to ignore this fact, hoping he will escape scottfree.