Either LBJ or GWB. Not sure which.

Setting fire to your own aircraft carrier, killing a half dozen of your own shipmates, destroying and killing your fellow fighter pilot......that is "work" in your mind? The only way this resembles "work" is that he received a paycheck anyway for something that would have gotten him fired in my world.

Andrew Johnson.

What he did to this country as criminal and has had far reaching implications that I expect we will continue to see for at least another century.

(He was the guy that ran the show after Lincoln. )

Is this Dipso?

You are extremely poorly informed. A 5" zuni rocket was fired from a DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT and hit McCains bird on the deck.

Edited - personal attack removed. -Z-man.

I just heard on the radio that as a percentage of the GNP and in constant dollars, the federal government under GWB grew at twice the rate as it did under LBJ. I have said for years that Bush is the Republican LBJ. I wish he'd stop proving me right.

Carter vs LBJ is name your poison. LBJ had Viet Nam, so he wins as far as lasting damage to the country and world, but Carter was so incompetent that he wins the worst president competition from the point of view of being just plain bad at the job, as opposed to choosing the wrong policies.

Nixon has to get a vote, regardless of whether you agree with his policies (I largely do) because of the cancer on the presidency that his paranoia was.

Going back, Jackson is a good choice. He disobeyed the Supreme Court, almost derailing the country's independent judicial branch and our democracy, and laying the groundwork for the holocaust that was perpetrated against the Indians. George Washington's plan, probably shared by Jefferson and the other founding fathers, to the extent that they thought of it, was to grant large areas of the country to the Indian nations and to grow the country around them. The reasoning was that they were there first, and there was enough land to go around. Jackson paved the way for the more expeditious path of just killing most of the Indians and shipping the ones who weren't dead off to some out of the way spot that we didn't want anyway.

The first Johnson, Andrew, gets votes for his handling of Reconstruction. As do the rest of the administrations until Reconstruction was finally abandoned and Jim Crow was allowed to take root with the acquiescence of the North.

Coolidge for creating the conditions for the Great Depression and then Hoover for doing everything he could to make it worse? FDR for expanding the role of government without ending the Great Depression, or really even slowing it down until WWII came around? Truman for losing China, failing to contain the Soviet Union and setting up the Cold War?

It's too hard to pick just one. And most of what we say are failures can be viewed as strengths. Superman is going to come on in a few minutes and remind us of how prescient Carter was. That may be, but after seeing a grown man wearing a cardigan and using the term "malaise" with a straight face, I can't take that man seriously again, Panama Canal or no.

Great question that depends upon what is historically important to an American. For instance, I'm certain I can find someone who thinks Lincoln was the worst president. They'll claim he ripped this country in half and that it still hasn't recovered.

GWB ranks down there. But JFK isn't so high up, either.

Wasn't that Fast Pat's position?

JFK has him by a country mile.

I believe so.

IMO the worst would be carter.
He sucked then and still does.


Here's how US news ranks them (1 being worst):

1. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
He refused to challenge either the spread of slavery or the growing bloc of states that became the Confederacy.

2. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
He was an ineffectual and indecisive leader who played poker while his friends plundered the U.S. treasury.

3. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
He survived impeachment after opposing Reconstruction initiatives including the 14th amendment.

4. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
His fervor for expanding the borders--thereby adding several slave states--helped set the stage for the Civil War.

5. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
He backed the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the Southern secession by allowing slavery to spread.

6. John Tyler (1841-1845)
He was a stalwart defender of slavery who abandoned his party’s platform once he was president.

7. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Serving right after Johnson, he presided over an outbreak of graft and corruption, but had good intentions.

8. William Harrison (1841)
He was president for all of 30 days after contracting pneumonia during his interminable inaugural.

9. (tie) Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
He was known as a poor communicator who fueled trade wars and exacerbated the Depression.

9. (tie) Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Though politically gifted, he will forever be associated with the Watergate scandal and his resignation.

10. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
A political novice, the war hero is entirely forgettable as president.

( Jimmy Carter at 11th).

How do they put a guy that only served as 30 days at #8?

Ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity, M21 - do you have a point in the whole ignore saga you just performed? Was there any kind of point at all? How did you add in any way to the discussion by doing that? So you don't agree with their thoughts - or are you trying to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have a place in the discussion? If so, real American of you. But I don't believe you stand for that.

Can you knock that crap off and let a discussion happen without that of junk? I know there are others on this board who wouldn't - but I would hope that you of all people could. It would be great to actually have a discussion on this board without having to wade through that kind of b.s. for a change.

Wow, another poster looking Seriously stupid.

Here is my response to the last chump to fall for (and recycle) the Obamanations pathetic distortions:

..and a follow-up video (McCain centric)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tzgV5QM5fi8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tzgV5QM5fi8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

No it is not. It is imprisonment.

Agreed.

Using his training to survive the torture sounds like work to me.

Well Jimmy was a peanut farmer. I'm not sure this made him better president.

I don't have a strong opinion on long-ago Presidents.

As far as more recent Presidents go, Johnson and Bush W are the worst in my book, primarily for Vietnam and Iraq. Bush 2 has also done a very poor job in Pakistan/Afghanistan. And he also also presided over huge increase in the national debt and deficit, and the development and now flowering of a very serious financial crisis which is likely going to result in the longest economic slowdown/recession since the 1970s. Bush W bears only partial responsibility for the financial crisis, but given his control of Congress for 6 of his 8 years and his total disinterest in balancing revenues with expenditures during that period, he gets a lot of the responsibility for the budget mess.

Carter was not an effective President, but at least he didn't go starting any trillion-dollar wars. I remember him mostly for the oil crisis, but frankly, other than invading Saudi Arabia and seizing their oil fields, I'm not sure what he was supposed to do about it.

Nixon was actually a reasonably effective President, if you forget about the whole illegal domestic spying thing - since you can't excuse that, he gets #3 on the list of "worst recent Presidents". Not that Bush W hasn't done a little illegal domestic spying himself.

Clinton was an effective President in economic terms, helped by luck and the Republican congress. Too bad the Republican congress' interest in fiscal discipline evaporated once they had their own man in the White House.Longest economic expansion, put the federal budget in surplus, brought the national debt down, can't deny those. No significant wars on his watch. But Clinton's personal misdeeds really marred his legacy. So as far as my pocketbook goes, he was the clear best, but I'm won't give him undisputed #1.

Let's see, I barely remember Ford.

Reagan was an effective President in foreign policy, helped by Gorbachev and the USSR's financial meltdown. Domestically, he ballooned the national debt, and not coincidentally Reagan's supply-side doctrines produced the exact same result when trotted out by Bush W.

And finally, Bush Sr looks good compared to his son, expecially in the "finishing wars" department - apparently any President armed with enough bogus intelligence can start a war, but successfully completing it is the trick.

So, my list of recent Presidents, from worst to best:

1 (worst) Bush W
2 Johnson
3 Nixon
4 Carter
5 Ford
6 Bush Sr
. . . and there is quite a gap between 6 and 7 . . .
7 (best) Reagan/Clinton (tied)
. . . funny, my ties for "best" are pretty much ideological opposites - but based on concrete results, I think they've earned it. And I voted for both.

P.S.: On the debate as to whether either of the current candidates has actual "work experience", I'd point out that having run a business etc doesn't seem to actually mean you'll be an effective President. Bush W was a businessman, the "MBA President" as well as governor of a large state, and he's not exactly distinguished himself. Reagan's pre-politics experience was as an actor, and Clinton was a career politician, and in my view they were the best Presidents of recent decades. Nor does military experience mean you'll be a good President. Bush Sr, Carter, and Bush W were all ex-military, and they're fairly far down the list, my list anyway.

I think the Presidency is a terribly hard job, and a very unique job. You have to make difficult judgments dealing with a broad range of issues and interests. No one person's prior career or education is all-encompassing enough to make him an effective President. I think, or surmise, that what you'd really want is a person who can gather and use a wide range of expert advisors and staff/cabinet, and has the instinct and political skills to make it work. That, and a lot of luck.

1 year in Hanoi Hilton is as good as a lifetime of hard work in any hard labor blue collar field IMO.

Now you're on ignore too...so i don't have to wade through your silliness for a change.

BTW your abbreviated curse word is an attempt to subvert the board profanity filters- and is a violation of the rules here. :eek: