Who was the last good Republican president in terms of reasonably good job performance?
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.
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.
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
[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?