My Take On That Stupid Poll Question
I wasn’t going to write about the media buzz surrounding the Quinnipiac poll question listing President Obama as the Worst President since World War II. However, Matt Dickinson captured my thoughts effectively, so I thought it was worth reposting:
Conservative pundits such as the Wall St. Journal’s Peggy Noonan continue to cite the recent Quinnipiac poll as evidence that Obama is perhaps the worst president to have served during the last seven decades. For reasons I discussed in my previous post, however, I think we need to resist jumping to that conclusion. First, the Quinnipiac survey asks respondents to choose the best, and the worst, president from among the 12 who have served in the post-World War II era, rather than allowing respondents to rank each of them using the same set of standards. Given the degree of partisan sorting among the general public, (and perhaps the public’s lack of historical memory!) we should not be surprised that the two most recent presidents, Obama and Republican George W. Bush, come in first and second, respectively, in the worst president list, and that in a head-to-head comparison of Bush and Obama, Democrats and Republicans present almost mirror images in their choice of the worst president.
Simply put, those who hate Obama (and a third of the electorate clearly does) will rank him as the worst. The rest of us are divided between the other Presidents. (Andy Borowitz has his typically amusing take on the poll that is also worth reading).
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
129 responses to My Take On That Stupid Poll Question
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shades July 6th, 2014 at 07:26
My first thought was it was taken by that “unskewed polls” guy.
Shades July 6th, 2014 at 07:26
My first thought was it was taken by that “unskewed polls” guy.
edmeyer_able July 6th, 2014 at 08:40
I thought it was a poll taken of the Fox panelists.
edmeyer_able July 6th, 2014 at 08:40
I thought it was a poll taken of the Fox panelists.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 09:25
A stupid poll based on a stupid premise. Ask anyone in their 20’s or 30’s about Ford and they’ll come up blank.
History forgets nuance, however history will forever remember who was in power during the 911 attack on the World Trade Center, the subsequent (and unprovoked) longest war in our history based on lies which employed outlawed criminal torture and other war crimes.
History will also remember who gave our citizenry access to affordable healthcare and which President ended two wars and presided over the killing of the world’s greatest terrorist.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 11:46
Silly Obama campaign talking points. Not honest analysis.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 12:27
Yeah, reality’s a bitch ain’t it?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 13:48
blaming President Carter for the implosion of policies in Iran that were in place two decades before he assumed office is not honest analysis, just silly right wing talking points.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 14:00
If we assume you are correct in saying two decades of policies in Iran were the cause of problems in 1976-80, that does not let President Carter off the hook for the responsibility to deal with the problems. My point is that Carter obviously did not deal effectively with the problems (he naively thought it would be okay for Khoumeni [sp?] to come back) and the seizure of power in Iran by terrorists started the modern age of terrorism.
However, nice to see that Carter/Iran is the only part of my rankings you take issue with. I take a big picture view of presidents and tried to be objective on each one.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:20
Other than Johnson’s misguided escalation of the war in VietNam, I take issue with all of your conclusions.
First of all, what President other than Jimmy Carter does not enrich himself after leaving office? As for Iran, it is the arrogance that we have the right to dictate the form of government in other sovereign nations that created the problem in the first place. President Carter took a small step away from that insane policy. That insanity was tried again in Iraq and the rest as they say is history, not to mention a monumental screw-up.
How is it that anti poverty programs alone threaten our financial well-being as opposed to the fact that we spend more on defense and military than the next half dozen or so nations all combined?
Yes, President Johnson along with the most LIBERAL factions of both parties were able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite alienating many of the men who had been his friends and mentors in Congress. He put the good of the nation before friendship, and politics and did what was right. That achievement of leadership and statesmanship dwarfs any mistakes as far as I am concerned.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:49
I don’t like enrichment after office much either, but what does that have to do with performance as president? Aside from the Clinton’s amassing over $100 Million, has it been that extreme?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 17:28
HIstorical facts are not “liberal lines” unless you concede that facts have a liberal bias.
The resentment over CIA involvement in overthrowing the lawfully elected head of state and replacing him with a secular dictator who was detested and feared by the Iranian people is not a liberal line, it is a matter of historical fact.
It was with American aid that the secret police force SAVAK was established. Within the first couple of years of the Shah’s rule, major opposition parties were banned and the leadership arrested, all with the blessings of the United States.
If you think that these actual events played absolutely no part in the resentment which lead to the installation of the Islamist regime currently in power, you go right ahead and indulge your fairy tales. I will stick to reality.
The reality is that our “friendly ally” was a brutal dictator, hated by the people he governed.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:42
You make a good argument that resentment over the Shah had some role in the calamity of Islamist Iran. I never said it had “absolutely no part in the resentment” of some Iranians. I still question your confidence about cause and effect. The “resentment” necessarily leads to Khomeni [sp?] and Islamist rule? And regardless of cause, doesn’t this beg the question of
Carter’s job being to find a better course of action than he did?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 18:09
criticism is easy. so what exactly should President Carter have done that he did not attempt through sanctions, a year of negotiations and a disastrous attempt at military rescue?
this was a foreign country which overthrew its government which happened to be friendly to the United States, and installed a government openly hostile to the United States. I think it is part of the problem to presume that Mr. Carter or in fact any American President has the ability or the right to intervene in such a situation.
Earlier, you mentioned the long term financial interests of this country, yet in your criticism of Mr. Carter, you make absolutely no mention of how many billions (or trillions) any alternative might have cost. The fact is that on the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the hostages were released. Other than getting our people home, there were no good alternatives. What happens in Iran is up to the Iranians. The sooner we understand that policy and the fact that it applies to every country, whether we like it or not, the better.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 20:07
The smart aleck answer to what Carter should have done in Iran is just about anything else. The result has been awful and getting worse. To me, it is no defense that America conduct prior to Carter contributed to causing the problem.
I’m no expert or even all that knowledgeable about Iran in the late 1970’s, but in general, I think Carter should have pressured the Shah to move much more quickly on moving to more freedom and reform and should have blocked rather than acquiesced in Khomeni [sp?] return. There was a educated middle class that could have been won over and probably some religious leaders who did not believe in religious control over government. As I said, I think presidents should be judged largely on the big issues that come their way. Iran was a big issue for Carter. The result was disastrous. He wanted the job. He is responsible.I realize hindsight is 20/20 and it was not an easy situation to deal with.
You are against U.S. intervention in other governments. it seems to me that is a mixed record. Good in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines (I guess), Kuwait and probably some others. Very bad in Vietnam, apparently Iraq, probably Libyaand perhaps others. Standing by also has produced some bad results — China, Syria, Libya (after knocking off Ghadaffi), and I’m sure others.
I think the job of the president is to figure these things out on a case by case basis, determine the best course, and let history judge his action.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:58
As to the “arrogance to dictate the form of government in sovereign nations,” I assume you are taking the liberal line of our CIA actions in the early 1950’s somehow are responsible for Islamist terrorists taking over Iran in the late 1970’s. First, it secured 25 years of a friendly ally in the middle east during a perilous time. Second, how to you assign so confidently cause and effect? Third, regardless of cause, it was Carter’s responsibility to find the best course of action when faced with the problem. Instead, he engaged in wishful thinking about Khomeni [sp?] and helped usher in modern terrorism and many of the problems faced today in the world.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:30
I would add that the Republicans who supported civil rights in 1964 such as Jacob Javits, and Everett Dirksen would be denounced today as RINO’s, not unlike the conservatives of today attempt to wrap themselves in the legacy of Martin Luther King while conveniently failing to mention how their ideological forebears condemned him as a communist.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:48
the effect of the war on poverty is being debated to this very day. its failure or success is eloquently argued on both sides. pick a think tank, and you can find an argument to support your opinion pro or con.
nunya fvckin' business July 11th, 2014 at 15:50
Just stop, baggs.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 09:25
A stupid poll based on a stupid premise. Ask anyone in their 20’s or 30’s about Ford and they’ll come up blank.
History forgets nuance, however history will forever remember who was in power during the 911 attack on the World Trade Center, the subsequent (and unprovoked) longest war in our history based on lies which employed outlawed criminal torture and other war crimes.
History will also remember who gave our citizenry access to affordable healthcare and it will remember which President ended two wars, presided over the killing of the world’s greatest terrorist whilst spearheading recovery from the greatest recession since the 1930’s depression.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 11:46
Silly Obama campaign talking points. Not honest analysis.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 12:27
Yeah, reality’s a bitch ain’t it?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 13:48
blaming President Carter for the implosion of policies in Iran that were in place two decades before he assumed office is not honest analysis, just silly right wing talking points.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 14:00
If we assume you are correct in saying two decades of policies in Iran were the cause of problems in 1976-80, that does not let President Carter off the hook for the responsibility to deal with the problems. My point is that Carter obviously did not deal effectively with the problems (he naively thought it would be okay for Khoumeni [sp?] to come back) and the seizure of power in Iran by terrorists started the modern age of terrorism.
However, nice to see that Carter/Iran is the only part of my rankings you take issue with. I take a big picture view of presidents and tried to be objective on each one.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:20
Other than Johnson’s misguided escalation of the war in VietNam, I take issue with all of your conclusions.
First of all, what President other than Jimmy Carter does not enrich himself after leaving office? As for Iran, it is the arrogance that we have the right to dictate the form of government in other sovereign nations that created the problem in the first place. President Carter took a small step away from that insane policy. That insanity was tried again in Iraq and the rest as they say is history, not to mention a monumental screw-up.
How is it that anti poverty programs alone threaten our financial well-being as opposed to the fact that we spend more on defense and military than the next half dozen or so nations all combined?
Yes, President Johnson along with the most LIBERAL factions of both parties were able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite alienating many of the men who had been his friends and mentors in Congress. He put the good of the nation before friendship, and politics and did what was right. That achievement of leadership and statesmanship dwarfs any mistakes as far as I am concerned.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:49
I don’t like enrichment after office much either, but what does that have to do with performance as president? Aside from the Clinton’s amassing over $100 Million, has it been that extreme?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 17:28
HIstorical facts are not “liberal lines” unless you concede that facts have a liberal bias.
The resentment over CIA involvement in overthrowing the lawfully elected head of state and replacing him with a secular dictator who was detested and feared by the Iranian people is not a liberal line, it is a matter of historical fact.
It was with American aid that the secret police force SAVAK was established. Within the first couple of years of the Shah’s rule, major opposition parties were banned and the leadership arrested, all with the blessings of the United States.
If you think that these actual events played absolutely no part in the resentment which lead to the installation of the Islamist regime currently in power, you go right ahead and indulge your fairy tales. I will stick to reality.
The reality is that our “friendly ally” was a brutal dictator, hated by the people he governed.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:42
You make a good argument that resentment over the Shah had some role in the calamity of Islamist Iran. I never said it had “absolutely no part in the resentment” of some Iranians. I still question your confidence about cause and effect. The “resentment” necessarily leads to Khomeni [sp?] and Islamist rule? And regardless of cause, doesn’t this beg the question of
Carter’s job being to find a better course of action than he did?
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 18:09
criticism is easy. so what exactly should President Carter have done that he did not attempt through sanctions, a year of negotiations and a disastrous attempt at military rescue?
this was a foreign country which overthrew its government which happened to be friendly to the United States, and installed a government openly hostile to the United States. I think it is part of the problem to presume that Mr. Carter or in fact any American President has the ability or the right to intervene in such a situation.
Earlier, you mentioned the long term financial interests of this country, yet in your criticism of Mr. Carter, you make absolutely no mention of how many billions (or trillions) any alternative might have cost. The fact is that on the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the hostages were released. Other than getting our people home, there were no good alternatives. What happens in Iran is up to the Iranians. The sooner we understand that policy and the fact that it applies to every country, whether we like it or not, the better.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 20:07
The smart aleck answer to what Carter should have done in Iran is just about anything else. The result has been awful and getting worse. To me, it is no defense that America conduct prior to Carter contributed to causing the problem.
I’m no expert or even all that knowledgeable about Iran in the late 1970’s, but in general, I think Carter should have pressured the Shah to move much more quickly on moving to more freedom and reform and should have blocked rather than acquiesced in Khomeni [sp?] return. There was a educated middle class that could have been won over and probably some religious leaders who did not believe in religious control over government. As I said, I think presidents should be judged largely on the big issues that come their way. Iran was a big issue for Carter. The result was disastrous. He wanted the job. He is responsible.I realize hindsight is 20/20 and it was not an easy situation to deal with.
You are against U.S. intervention in other governments. it seems to me that is a mixed record. Good in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines (I guess), Kuwait and probably some others. Very bad in Vietnam, apparently Iraq, probably Libyaand perhaps others. Standing by also has produced some bad results — China, Syria, Libya (after knocking off Ghadaffi), and I’m sure others.
I think the job of the president is to figure these things out on a case by case basis, determine the best course, and let history judge his action.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:58
As to the “arrogance to dictate the form of government in sovereign nations,” I assume you are taking the liberal line of our CIA actions in the early 1950’s somehow are responsible for Islamist terrorists taking over Iran in the late 1970’s. First, it secured 25 years of a friendly ally in the middle east during a perilous time. Second, how to you assign so confidently cause and effect? Third, regardless of cause, it was Carter’s responsibility to find the best course of action when faced with the problem. Instead, he engaged in wishful thinking about Khomeni [sp?] and helped usher in modern terrorism and many of the problems faced today in the world.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:30
I would add that the Republicans who supported civil rights in 1964 such as Jacob Javits, and Everett Dirksen would be denounced today as RINO’s, not unlike the conservatives of today attempt to wrap themselves in the legacy of Martin Luther King while conveniently failing to mention how their ideological forebears condemned him as a communist.
arc99 July 6th, 2014 at 14:48
the effect of the war on poverty is being debated to this very day. its failure or success is eloquently argued on both sides. pick a think tank, and you can find an argument to support your opinion pro or con.
nunya fvckin' business July 11th, 2014 at 15:50
Just stop, baggs.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 11:45
A liberal can’t quite get to honesty. Yes, the high ranking of Obama is the result of strong partisanship (no, not “hate” – liberals are so quick to call over 50 million of their fellow Americans haters).
More significantly, it is not the “rest of us divided among the other presidents.” It is the highly partisan democrats choosing Bush II and then the rest of us divided among others.
Personally, I tend to think Obama will wind up worst, but he still has two years and too early to judge. Of the rest, I think the worst are Johnson (Vietnam and a host of anti-poverty programs that have not worked and threaten the long term financial well being of country); Carter (allowing Iran to start the world of terror), and Clinton (showing how liars save their job and become rich). The best are Kennedy (made the right decision when faced with possible nuclear war – admittedly caused by his own incompetence), Reagan (turned around America and won Cold War), Bush I (stopped Saddam), and Eisenhower (did no harm and navigated cold war).
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 16:41
Wow, I am unable to describe how embarrassed I am to share a city with you. I am willing to bet you post comments in the KC Star too. I am proud of my city and my President, I’m also not a chickenshit and use my own image and name so there is no doubt of how I honestly feel.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 16:48
Good for you, Carla. Now, tell me what I said in my post that makes you embarrassed to share a city with me. What is it that makes many liberals attack people for expressing an opinion instead of engaging them on the substance?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 16:54
I would if I thought you were a real person, but to me you look like a troll. Unwilling and unable to stand behind your statements and beliefs.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 16:57
Sure you would. Say goodnight, Carla.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 16:59
Silly little troll with nothing of substance to offer to the discussion.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:06
You may have noticed the moderator icon behind my name, it provides me information on those posting on this website. I do know who you are but as a person of integrity I won’t out you or “doxx” as the saying goes. You mention a single issue of previous Presidents but all you say about Obama is that he’s the worst, no reasoning, no issue to debate, just that he’s the worst (pending his final two years). Our readers are well informed intelligent people, simply stating he’s the worst, especially under an anonymous avatar holds no water here.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:07
P.S. Great job using your work email genius.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:20
If a site decides to allow anonymous posts, why is it a bad thing to post anonymously?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:24
You are more than welcome to post anonymously, just don’t expect me to find you credible.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:33
Okay. Thanks. I have never been here before.I get the sense that it is not a site for friendly and substantive liberal/conservative debate. And I don’t understand why anonymity affects the “credibility” of one expressing an opinion, but to each their own.
Good night :)
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:46
Funny you should think that, this is a liberal leaning site, but we have several regular conservative readers and commenters. We often debate the merits of a policy or issue but always provide supportive evidence to back up our claim. You made a random statement with no support using an anonymous avatar. I, nor any of our readers have time for that kind of bullshit. You either bring your game and be prepared to back it up or at least defend your position. This is not CNN, where your comment can state anything and remain as valid. We take our country and it’s leaders seriously. Okay, not Gohmert but the rest have a very real effect on how our country is run.
You are more than welcome to stay, we invite those of differing views and love to add to the discussion – just be prepared to know your stuff, be able to defend it and most importantly be able to back it up with legitimate supportive evidence.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:58
Thanks. I’m curious. What was my “random statement with no support.” I thought I concisely stated the basis for my view of each president that I categorized as among the worst or best. I guess you took offense on Obama, but I clearly said it was too early to judge him.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 20:14
You were clear on previous Presidents, but a general claim fir our current POTUS with no specifics makes it feel like you just don;t like him – but you can’t offer any support to back it up
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 21:29
Well, you seem sensitive about President Obama. I said it was too early to judge him and you were unable to describe how embarrassed you were to share the same city with me.
nunya fvckin' business July 11th, 2014 at 15:46
Well, until this post, I was behind you all the way. KC is absolutely on the wrong side of history on this and MOST of his republiCON crap. However, his use of an anonymous name detracts nothing FROM HIS “CRED” or LACK THEROF. wHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, “Carla?” Having “mod” behind your name only proves one thing, that being that you consider your “opinion” is more valid than mine. You may be correct in this but please don’t let your “opinion” override your pontificating ass!
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:13
No. As to President Obama, I said “Personally, I tend to think Obama will wind up worst [since World War II], but he still has two years and.years and too early to judge.” That is offensive?
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:11
She’s one of our moderators and a friend. She’s not going anywhere.
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:10
Clinton left us with surplus and you think he’s one of the worst. Your hatred is showing.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:15
I thought it was awful for the country to have a president stick a finger in our face and lie in order to save his job and have it succeed. Isn’t that a very bad thing for a president to do?
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:44
Oh you mean the blow job? That thing men never do?
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:50
Not getting the blow job. Lying to the American people in order to successfully save his job. If you think that is okay because it was “just a about a blow job,” okay. Seems to me to be a very bad thing for our president to do and to provide an example of how dishonesty pays (huge – after saving his job, he amassed over $100 million in wealth).
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 18:04
Yes taking advantage of a young lady was an awful thing to do and it has tarnished his legacy, deservedly so. Speaking of wealth and presidencies Mr Cheney made out very well while in office, W being complicit of course.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 21:22
I’m curious. You don’t think lying to us in order to save his job was a very bad thing for a president to do?
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 23:30
No, I don’t think lying was worse than taking advantage of a young girl. It certainly didn’t save his job, gop tried and ooops that big gun called impeachment backfired as I recall.
I’m also curious, which is worse, lying about having sex with a woman other than your wife or lying to make people rich at the expense of many lives in a war for profit?
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 23:50
You guys are tough to pin down. I did not ask if the lying was worse than taking advantage of a young girl. I asked if you thought the Clinton lying was bad.
And now we are quibbling about whether his motivation for lying was to save his job and whether he was successful in saving his job? Both seem self evident to me.
And, of course, we fall back on the left wing rant that Bush lied and people died – with the addition that it was done to make people rich. If anyone did what you said, it would be worse than the lies of Clinton. But I don’t think Bush lied. Or Hillary lied. Or Al Gore lied. When they all said Saddam had WMD.
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:01
Can’t believe I just stumbled across this at another site. Spoiler alert. It is video of a bunch of democrats saying Saddam has WMD. I don’t see how liberals can accuse Bush of lying when your guys were saying the same thing after looking at the same intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:21
Sorry guys, I had no idea the link would be this prominent. I’m sure it bothers some people. But it does make the point that democrats were saying the same thing as Bush.
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 00:35
You think parading what others said is gonna change my mind whether W and his administration lied? As for as I’m concerned that goes to show the world how far the military industrial complex will go to feed itself.
See, here’s the fundamental difference between you and me, I will not sacrifice my integrity for a politician.
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 00:09
I think you have me confused with a person sitting at a deposition.
Well of course I’m gonna call you a hypocrite, sheeeesh, you mention how your feelings got hurt when Clinton lied to “us” (tear drop) and how he made a lot of money so I turned it around, why wouldn’t I? Of course you didn’t think W lied, thats a lot of blood to wash off, I gotta it, W navigated through desert storm until a republican can occupy the white house and win the middle east for americans.
You guys are easy to pin down.
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:23
Craig, I think we have exhausted whatever interesting dialogue we might have on these subjects. Thanks for the interaction (other than the name-calling)
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 07:11
Take care KC
I’m a St Louis boy, so of course there is that built in cross state rivalry. Oh, the day I see supporters of the gop denounce the name calling heard coming out of the darkness of the right I will watch how I label those who defend right wing rhetoric.
Be safe
Anomaly 100 July 12th, 2014 at 09:52
He paid for his lie. Now about the Republicans that called for his impeachment: Several of them were caught in the same lie later.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:57
LOL @ you
Hey, its dark down there, be nice
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 18:10
For realsies though: What man hasn’t lied about a blow job?
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 18:20
See, I thought you were saying……nevermind
Pfffft we lie about taking out the trash, yeah your assumption is dead on.
Brix July 12th, 2014 at 09:18
As far as I’m concerned, he deserved one.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:17
“Iran to start the world of terror”? So there was no terror before Iran or was that all Carter?
“Reagan turned around america an won cold war” What did america win? Was it a trophy? Like the Lombardi trophy? Awesome!
Bush1 stopped Saddam and we lived happily ever after, right?
Eisenhower (did no harm and navigated the cold war) navigated? Until the skipper became president, roger that, I’m picking up what you’re laying down.
Johnson deserves great credit for civil rights, yep he certainly did do a lot of marching, and remember that one time he got hit with that water cannon, his suit got all wet, tragic.
Yes, you are a true historian, thank you for a brief look into your history book.
WOW!
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:29
Itwould be have been better for my shorthand to be “start the modern world of terror” which Iran has largely bankrolled and supported. I’ll fix it.
I did not say anything about happily ever after. Bush 41 stopped Saddam from occupying Kuwait and likely Saudi Arabia and beyond by putting together a coalition of nations. I thought that was a very good president stepping up to the moment.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:42
http://mic.com/articles/60447/louisiana-republicans-think-hurricane-katrina-is-obama-s-fault
C’mon, your abbreviated history lessons not withstanding the best/worst president list is fodder for partsan hacks.
What’s your opinion on Mr Obama’s handling of the katrina disaster, to slow? He sure took it on the chin when republicans were “polled”
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:46
It certainly can be fodder for partisan hacks. It does not have to be. You might notice I put a democrat first and would have put Truman and Roosevelt among the best if they were included in the time period.
Nicholas Russell Harris July 7th, 2014 at 05:28
You must live ina real ‘good’ fantasy lamd if you think Reagan was a “good” president. He and his tax cuts to the rich and tinkle down economic policies are what set us up for the clustef**k we had with Bush Jr. And now the nut job Tea Party people. . .
You know what IS funny though? Back in the 50’s Reagan was pro social programs and actually a borderline socialist. . .that stroke must have really fouled up his brain something awful (or his wife did) to make him 180° on all of that tp become what he was. . .
*EDIT
I believe I heard the speech where he said the socialist natured comments on the Family Meeting on WCPT and before that on a WROK 1440 (Rockford IL station my boss listens too while we do chimney jobs) conservative talk show back in late May
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 11:45
A liberal so often can’t quite get to honesty. Yes, the high ranking of Obama is the result of strong partisanship (no, not “hate” – liberals are so quick to call over 50 million of their fellow Americans haters).
More significantly, it is not the “rest of us divided among the other presidents.” It is the highly partisan democrats choosing Bush II and then the rest of us divided among others.
Personally, I tend to think Obama will wind up worst, but he still has two years and too early to judge. Of the rest, I think the worst are Johnson (Vietnam and a host of anti-poverty programs that have not worked and threaten the long term financial well being of country); Carter (allowing Iran to start the world of terror), and Clinton (showing how liars save their job and become rich). The best are Kennedy (made the right decision when faced with possible nuclear war – admittedly caused by his own incompetence), Reagan (turned around America and won Cold War), Bush I (stopped Saddam), and Eisenhower (did no harm and navigated cold war).
Johnson deserves great credit for Civil Rights (along with republicans who supported him in greater % than democrats), but his other blunders were too great.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 16:41
Wow, I am unable to describe how embarrassed I am to share a city with you. I am willing to bet you post comments in the KC Star too. I am proud of my city and my President, I’m also not a chickenshit and use my own image and name so there is no doubt of how I honestly feel.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 16:48
Good for you, Carla. Now, tell me what I said in my post that makes you embarrassed to share a city with me. What is it that makes many liberals attack people for expressing an opinion instead of engaging them on the substance?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 16:54
I would if I thought you were a real person, but to me you look like a troll. Unwilling and unable to stand behind your statements and beliefs.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 16:57
Sure you would. Say goodnight, Carla.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 6th, 2014 at 16:59
Silly little troll with nothing of substance to offer to the discussion.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:06
You may have noticed the moderator icon behind my name, it provides me information on those posting on this website. I do know who you are but as a person of integrity I won’t out you or “doxx” as the saying goes. You mention a single issue of previous Presidents but all you say about Obama is that he’s the worst, no reasoning, no issue to debate, just that he’s the worst (pending his final two years). Our readers are well informed intelligent people, simply stating he’s the worst, especially under an anonymous avatar holds no water here.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:07
P.S. Great job using your work email genius.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:20
If a site decides to allow anonymous posts, why is it a bad thing to post anonymously?
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:24
You are more than welcome to post anonymously, just don’t expect me to find you credible.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:33
Okay. Thanks. I have never been here before.I get the sense that it is not a site for friendly and substantive liberal/conservative debate. And I don’t understand why anonymity affects the “credibility” of one expressing an opinion, but to each their own.
Good night :)
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:46
Funny you should think that, this is a liberal leaning site, but we have several regular conservative readers and commenters. We often debate the merits of a policy or issue but always provide supportive evidence to back up our claim. You made a random statement with no support using an anonymous avatar. I, nor any of our readers have time for that kind of bullshit. You either bring your game and be prepared to back it up or at least defend your position. This is not CNN, where your comment can state anything and remain as valid. We take our country and it’s leaders seriously. Okay, not Gohmert but the rest have a very real effect on how our country is run.
You are more than welcome to stay, we invite those of differing views and love to add to the discussion – just be prepared to know your stuff, be able to defend it and most importantly be able to back it up with legitimate supportive evidence.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:58
Thanks. I’m curious. What was my “random statement with no support.” I thought I concisely stated the basis for my view of each president that I categorized as among the worst or best. I guess you took offense on Obama, but I clearly said it was too early to judge him.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 20:14
You were clear on previous Presidents, but a general claim fir our current POTUS with no specifics makes it feel like you just don;t like him – but you can’t offer any support to back it up
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 21:29
Well, you seem sensitive about President Obama. I said it was too early to judge him and you were unable to describe how embarrassed you were to share the same city with me.
nunya fvckin' business July 11th, 2014 at 15:46
Well, until this post, I was behind you all the way. KC is absolutely on the wrong side of history on this and MOST of his republiCON crap. However, his use of an anonymous name detracts nothing FROM HIS “CRED” or LACK THEROF. wHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, “Carla?” Having “mod” behind your name only proves one thing, that being that you consider your “opinion” is more valid than mine. You may be correct in this but please don’t let your “opinion” override your pontificating ass!
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:13
No. As to President Obama, I said “Personally, I tend to think Obama will wind up worst [since World War II], but he still has two years and.years and too early to judge.” That is offensive?
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:11
She’s one of our moderators and a friend. She’s not going anywhere.
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:10
Clinton left us with surplus and you think he’s one of the worst. Your hatred is showing.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:15
I thought it was awful for the country to have a president stick a finger in our face and lie in order to save his job and have it succeed. Isn’t that a very bad thing for a president to do?
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 17:44
Oh you mean the blow job? That thing men never do?
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:50
Not getting the blow job. Lying to the American people in order to successfully save his job. If you think that is okay because it was “just a about a blow job,” okay. Seems to me to be a very bad thing for our president to do and to provide an example of how dishonesty pays (huge – after saving his job, he amassed over $100 million in wealth).
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 18:04
Yes taking advantage of a young lady was an awful thing to do and it has tarnished his legacy, deservedly so. Speaking of wealth and presidencies Mr Cheney made out very well while in office, W being complicit of course.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 21:22
I’m curious. You don’t think lying to us in order to save his job was a very bad thing for a president to do?
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 23:30
No, I don’t think lying was worse than taking advantage of a young girl. It certainly didn’t save his job, gop tried and ooops that big gun called impeachment backfired as I recall.
I’m also curious, which is worse, lying about having sex with a woman other than your wife or lying to make people rich at the expense of many lives in a war for profit?
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 23:50
You guys are tough to pin down. I did not ask if the lying was worse than taking advantage of a young girl. I asked if you thought the Clinton lying was bad.
And now we are quibbling about whether his motivation for lying was to save his job and whether he was successful in saving his job? Both seem self evident to me.
And, of course, we fall back on the left wing rant that Bush lied and people died – with the addition that it was done to make people rich. If anyone did what you said, it would be worse than the lies of Clinton. But I don’t think Bush lied. Or Hillary lied. Or Al Gore lied. When they all said Saddam had WMD.
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:01
Can’t believe I just stumbled across this at another site. Spoiler alert. It is video of a bunch of democrats saying Saddam has WMD. I don’t see how liberals can accuse Bush of lying when your guys were saying the same thing after looking at the same intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:21
Sorry guys, I had no idea the link would be this prominent. I’m sure it bothers some people. But it does make the point that democrats were saying the same thing as Bush.
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 00:35
You think parading what others said is gonna change my mind whether W and his administration lied? As for as I’m concerned that goes to show the world how far the military industrial complex will go to feed itself.
See, here’s the fundamental difference between you and me, I will not sacrifice my integrity for a politician.
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 00:09
I think you have me confused with a person sitting at a deposition.
Well of course I’m gonna call you a hypocrite, sheeeesh, you mention how your feelings got hurt when Clinton lied to “us” (tear drop) and how he made a lot of money so I turned it around, why wouldn’t I? Of course you didn’t think W lied, thats a lot of blood to wash off, I gotta it, W navigated through desert storm until a republican can occupy the white house and win the middle east for americans.
You guys are easy to pin down.
Kansas_City July 7th, 2014 at 00:23
Craig, I think we have exhausted whatever interesting dialogue we might have on these subjects. Thanks for the interaction (other than the name-calling)
craig7120 July 7th, 2014 at 07:11
Take care KC
I’m a St Louis boy, so of course there is that built in cross state rivalry. Oh, the day I see supporters of the gop denounce the name calling heard coming out of the darkness of the right I will watch how I label those who defend right wing rhetoric.
Be safe
Anomaly 100 July 12th, 2014 at 09:52
He paid for his lie. Now about the Republicans that called for his impeachment: Several of them were caught in the same lie later.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:57
LOL @ you
Hey, its dark down there, be nice
Anomaly 100 July 6th, 2014 at 18:10
For realsies though: What man hasn’t lied about a blow job?
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 18:20
See, I thought you were saying……nevermind
Pfffft we lie about taking out the trash, yeah your assumption is dead on.
Brix July 12th, 2014 at 09:18
As far as I’m concerned, he deserved one.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:17
“Iran to start the world of terror”? So there was no terror before Iran or was that all Carter?
“Reagan turned around america an won cold war” What did america win? Was it a trophy? Like the Lombardi trophy? Awesome!
Bush1 stopped Saddam and we lived happily ever after, right?
Eisenhower (did no harm and navigated the cold war) navigated? Until the skipper became president, roger that, I’m picking up what you’re laying down.
Johnson deserves great credit for civil rights, yep he certainly did do a lot of marching, and remember that one time he got hit with that water cannon, his suit got all wet, tragic.
Yes, you are a true historian, thank you for a brief look into your history book.
WOW!
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:29
Itwould be have been better for my shorthand to be “start the modern world of terror” which Iran has largely bankrolled and supported. I’ll fix it.
I did not say anything about happily ever after. Bush 41 stopped Saddam from occupying Kuwait and likely Saudi Arabia and beyond by putting together a coalition of nations. I thought that was a very good president stepping up to the moment.
craig7120 July 6th, 2014 at 17:42
http://mic.com/articles/60447/louisiana-republicans-think-hurricane-katrina-is-obama-s-fault
C’mon, your abbreviated history lessons not withstanding the best/worst president list is fodder for partsan hacks.
What’s your opinion on Mr Obama’s handling of the katrina disaster, to slow? He sure took it on the chin when republicans were “polled”
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 17:46
It certainly can be fodder for partisan hacks. It does not have to be. You might notice I put a democrat first and would have put Truman and Roosevelt among the best if they were included in the time period.
Nicholas Russell Harris July 7th, 2014 at 05:28
You must live ina real ‘good’ fantasy lamd if you think Reagan was a “good” president. He and his tax cuts to the rich and tinkle down economic policies are what set us up for the clustef**k we had with Bush Jr. And now the nut job Tea Party people. . .
You know what IS funny though? Back in the 50’s Reagan was pro social programs and actually a borderline socialist. . .that stroke must have really fouled up his brain something awful (or his wife did) to make him 180° on all of that tp become what he was. . .
*EDIT
I believe I heard the speech where he said the socialist natured comments on the Family Meeting on WCPT and before that on a WROK 1440 (Rockford IL station my boss listens too while we do chimney jobs) conservative talk show back in late May
JimNauseam July 6th, 2014 at 14:20
Polls like this don’t mean a thing. Just look at the state of this nation when Clinton left office, and compare it to the state of the nation when Bush43 left office. Surely no President has ever inherited the country in better shape and left it such a shambles. Throw in his illegally wiretapping, his pointless invasion of Iraq and his torture program, not to mention a destroyed economy, and it’s hard to think of a worse president in U.S. history than George W. Bush.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:40
Allow me to present Jim as Exhibit A as to how strong partisans vote for the worst president. He states “surely no President has even inherited the country in better shape.” Er, no. Bush 43 inherited a recession and a world with terrorism on the rise. Too soon to tell how Bush 43 or Obama ultimately will look in history, but right now, neither seems likely to rank high.
JimNauseam July 6th, 2014 at 14:20
Polls like this don’t mean a thing. Just look at the state of this nation when Clinton left office, and compare it to the state of the nation when Bush43 left office. Surely no President has ever inherited the country in better shape and left it such a shambles. Throw in his illegally wiretapping, his pointless invasion of Iraq and his torture program, not to mention a destroyed economy, and it’s hard to think of a worse president in U.S. history than George W. Bush.
Kansas_City July 6th, 2014 at 15:40
Allow me to present Jim as Exhibit A as to how strong partisans vote for the worst president. He states “surely no President has even inherited the country in better shape.” Er, no. Bush 43 inherited a recession and a world with terrorism on the rise. Too soon to tell how Bush 43 or Obama ultimately will look in history, but right now, neither seems likely to rank high.
Carla Akins July 6th, 2014 at 17:00
test test test
fancypants July 7th, 2014 at 01:24
as I said before I will wait for the presidential historians comments after obama”s 2nd term.
The media these days are starting to look like fools in order to keep their jobs.
fancypants July 7th, 2014 at 01:24
as I said before I will wait for the presidential historians comments after obama”s 2nd term.
The media these days are starting to look like fools in order to keep their jobs.
Budda July 8th, 2014 at 12:21
This was one of the first things I saw when I emerged from Death Valley….unbelievable!
Budda July 8th, 2014 at 12:21
This was one of the first things I saw when I emerged from Death Valley….unbelievable!
toadUso July 8th, 2014 at 13:10
Results of other questions in the July 3 Quinnipiac poll:
By a 51 – 27 percent margin, American voters blame former President George W.
Bush, rather than Obama, for the situation in Iraq.
The war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 61 – 32 percent, and
withdrawal of U.S. troops was the right thing to do, voters say 58 – 37 percent.
American voters oppose 63 – 29 percent sending U.S. ground troops back into Iraq.
American voters support 92 – 7 percent, including 92 – 6 percent among gun owners,
requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Voters also support 89 – 9 percent laws to prevent people with mental illness from
purchasing guns. Gun owners support this idea 91 – 7 percent.
Voters support 58 – 30 percent federal government actions to limit greenhouse gases
from existing power plants to reduce global warming.
toadUso July 8th, 2014 at 13:10
Results of other questions in the July 3 Quinnipiac poll:
By a 51 – 27 percent margin, American voters blame former President George W.
Bush, rather than Obama, for the situation in Iraq.
The war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 61 – 32 percent, and
withdrawal of U.S. troops was the right thing to do, voters say 58 – 37 percent.
American voters oppose 63 – 29 percent sending U.S. ground troops back into Iraq.
American voters support 92 – 7 percent, including 92 – 6 percent among gun owners,
requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Voters also support 89 – 9 percent laws to prevent people with mental illness from
purchasing guns. Gun owners support this idea 91 – 7 percent.
Voters support 58 – 30 percent federal government actions to limit greenhouse gases
from existing power plants to reduce global warming.