Who was the last good Republican president in terms of reasonably good job performance?
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Bush Sr.
0voters
Who do you think was the last good Republican president in terms of job performance?
I have to pick Eisenhower. He was a man of exceptional character and integrity, and a wise president. He didn’t accomplish a whole lot during his presidency (he spent much of his time playing golf with Bush’s grandfather). In other words he was an average president.
But he did show wisdom and restraint in the decisions he made. He refused to commit American troops to Vietnam, as the French requested him to do at Dien Bien Phu. Eisenhower knew a military disaster in the making just by looking at a battle map, and knew the terrain of the country was unsuitable for conventional warfare. It would wear down division after division of American troops. Even MacArthur warned Kennedy never to commit to a land war on the Asian mainland.
Ike also brought down Joe McCarthy by not giving him attention. Eisenhower knew that the only way to give a scoundrel legitimacy is by granting him public attention. He worked behind the scenes to bring down McCarthy. Many Americans wanted Ike to challenge McCarthy directly, but Ike did not want to give McCarthy all the attention a big public argument with the president would bring. Eventually time will destroy him.
Eisenhower sent 15,000 American soldiers to Lebanon on a non-combat peacekeeping mission there. Within 3 months, they were out of the country after restoring order there, suffering just one casualty.
Ike was upset by the actions of Britain, France, and Israel in sending troops to invade Egypt in 1956. He wanted to settle the Suez Canal dispute with diplomacy before the Soviets exploited the situation for political gain. As Eisenhower predicted, invading Egypt badly tarnished the reputations of Britain and France among Arab nations.
Last of all, Ike created the Interstate Highway System that made it possible for Americans to travel across the country. The downside was it helped aggravate sprawl.
Of course many of you will disagree with me on Ike.
I’ll agree with the assessment for Ike; he was probably the last one that really performed up to expectations.
On a side note, Bush Sr. was not that bad. He had to focus and handle the dismantling of the USSR without the world going into mass panic. It was a tough situation for any president to have to handle.
After the last two presidents I’ve given up on presidents. I don’t need one anymore. They’re anachronisms in an age of instant global communications.
The whole idea of “leaders” was never much good anyway, human nature being what it is. Give a human being a little power and they’re inevitably soon partying with the national rent money.
You’re free. Forget presidents and all that crap. Seize the moment.
Agreed, but too bad he had to vomit in front of the Japanese prime minister. Remember that photo of the Japanese prime minister cradling the president’s head in his lap?
USSR experts believed they would have collapse on their own without the jellybean hording President giving performances, as if they would be nominated for Oscars.
The experts disagree, but most of the histories I’ve read do consider Reagan’s massive defense spending to be a contributing factor, including Russian sources. I don’t think anyone doubts that the USSR’s collapse was predominantly internal. Their military expenditures had created huge budget deficits, they refused to enact economic reform, and their occupation of Afghanistan had caused deep political divisions among the leadership and disillusionment among the people. But by escalating the Cold War rather than choosing the easy path of détente, Reagan accelerated their economic decline and political dissolution.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Well, Reagan’s controversial support of the Strategic Defense Intiative contributed to the collapse of the USSR. That’s gotta count for something.[/quote]GBH -
Funny this should come up…
[quote]‘Star Wars’ Indeed
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 03, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Security: Perhaps you haven’t heard, since the media would rather ignore the success of what they’ve derided since Ronald Reagan floated the idea 24 years ago, but America now has a working missile defense system.
The news was not entirely ignored. The New York Times/International Herald Tribune covered it. But it has gone largely unreported elsewhere.
When a senior military officer says that a key defense system is operative, newspapers should splash that on their front pages and television and radio should begin their broadcasts with the news.
It’s as if the media don’t believe the U.S. is worth protecting.[b](more at link) Investor Business Daily[/quote]
Wow, no support at all for Bush Sr. I thought he did pretty good but made one big mistake – raising taxes after he said he wouldn’t – and then had some bad luck with the economy turning down at a bad time and a halfway serious 3rd party candidate splitting the vote. His handling of the 1st Gulf War has certainly far surpassed any of our military interventions since.
The collapse of Soviet communism exactly coincided with the demise of the original generation of hard-core Bolsheviks. That’s the real reason for the collapse of communism. The next generation wasn’t interested in perpetuating the privations and stupidities of the Marxist-Leninist pipe dream. All they wanted was to be rich and enjoy the good life a la the West. The same thing happened in China when the old guard died out.
It will happen in Cuba and North Korea when Castro and Kim Jong Il are gone because communism almost ensures it will be a single generation phenomenon – or at most a father/son phenomenon – by creating a system which hoards power in the hands of a single larger than life cult figure who is too jealous of that god-like power to cultivate willing, capable successors.
Yeah, there’s no doubt about it, kicking the shit out of a retreating third world army of reluctant conscripts/thieves does wonders for a military’s battered confidence. However, sending the lads in for another round of argy bargy with an irregular guerrilla force is certainly a much tougher fish to fry, obviously. But who knows, one day they may just find a way to beat this sort of lot. No time soon by the look of things, alas.
Bush Sr. legacy fumbles on the fact he was unable to see the consequences of how some Saudi would perceive US bases in Saudi Arabia. Not to mention how much he charged Saudi Arabia for the 1st Gulf War didn’t go over too well with some individuals as well, precipitating into 9/11
Perhaps, but at least he was at least intelligent enough to not get into the guerrilla war you describe.
Besides, I’m not arguing that Bush should go down in history as one of the great presidents, just that he fits the OP’s criteria of being 1) the most recent, and 2) generally a good president.
No, no, I totally agree. Although geeing up the Kurds and others with talk of a possible invasion probably wasn’t the best thing to do in hindsight.
In my own puerile way I couldn’t help admiring him for spewing on the Japanese PM when he was there to tell the man off about trade imbalance.
But where Bush Snr falls down for me was in his former role as head of the CIA, and over a particularly nasty period. God knows what spots the man has on his hands.
[quote=“Whitehouse Press Release”]Q Does the President pay for his own health care, around-the-clock doctors and nurses here?
MS. PERINO: I believe as Commander-in-Chief and as President, any President is taken care of. But I’d have to look back at it and make sure – look at that financial disclosure and make sure.
Q You’ll get back to me on that?
MS. PERINO: Yes – actually I’m going to have Emily Lawrimore do it, since I’m going to travel today.[/quote]
[quote=“Whitehouse Press Release”]Q Does the President pay for his own health care, around-the-clock doctors and nurses here?
MS. PERINO: I believe as Commander-in-Chief and as President, any President is taken care of. But I’d have to look back at it and make sure – look at that financial disclosure and make sure.
Q You’ll get back to me on that?
MS. PERINO: Yes – actually I’m going to have Emily Lawrimore do it, since I’m going to travel today.[/quote][/quote]
Totally irrelevant to this thread spook…but you had to find someway to mis-represent the veto didn’t you?
