Who has been worst president in last 50 years?

i'm not a fan of any of them, though i've only been alive for the past 4.

 

I cannot believe Carter is getting killed. People wanted an honest president and he was the most honest ever (Well G.W. might object to that statement)


But GB1 is the worst I have seen. He signed an executive order banning the importation of certain items in 1989. I still like seeing him at astros games though.

 

I'll take the easy way out and vote for Nixon; largely because he paved the way for Ford and Carter.

 

Yes, but unfortunately, people don't really mean it when they say they want an "honest" president.

Carter presided through a recession, which pretty much automatically screws any president not named FDR in historical terms.

 

Looks like Bush II in a landslide!

 

Bush II is voted "the worst" only because he is current. Jimmy Carter easily was the worst President since the days of Fillmore and Buchanan, although they did not have the opportunity for harm that Carter did. (And, yes, I voted for him.)

I've been alive for all of them, although I was too little to care what Ike did or didn't do. That's why reading diverse histories of political figures provides insight.

 

Johnson was Bush on Steroids, and did the most damage to the country by a long shot. Carter was the least effective, but didn't do nearly as much damage as Johnson or Bush.

 

Bush II worst president EVER

 

Carter was not nearly as bad as Bush II. No comparison. Carter did not do that much harm. The main problem was stagflation, which his administration did not clear up. Oil prices went very high in a complete shock to the country. Carter talked about conservation and solar, while people preferred the Reagan approach of "it is sunny and we don't have any problems. The Iranian hostage crisis could have happened under any President. Reagan retreated from Lebanon when the marines were bombed. Carter did an excellent job in getting us out of occupying the Panama Canal.

 

When oil hits $400/bbl we are going to be glad we've got a large presence in Iraq and the Middle East. I'll just say that. We WILL SEE a global struggle over energy in our lifetimes. Take that to the bank. If we hope to maintain our standard of living, or even come close, we must secure the Middle East. This foresight and vision can not be obscured by the politically-driven, short-sighted liberals who think closing your eyes makes all your problems go away.

 

Well, first it must hurt to see your hero Bush II disliked so much on the bbs.

At least you admit it was a war for oil. It was a needless stupid war as there were other routes to go for our energy needs.

The $ 3 to $5 trillion spent on Iraq could buy a lot of oil. I read about 30 years of what we import at today's prices. Probably enough to convert to hydrogen or solar or Canadian or Colorado oil shale etc. Use half of the Iraq wasted money to buy oil and the other half while we conserve/convert to other energy.

Instead you and Bush and now McCain want to keep occupying Iraq a losing energy strategy.

 

See, I think Johnson was more of a product of circumstance in regards to foreign relations. He inherited much of the US' policy of containment in Vietnam, that in retrospect, was quite misunderstood. Ever since Truman, we had a policy of propping up corrupt South Vietnamese governments in the name of stopping communism. Eisenhower's "domino effect," placed too much emphasis on Vietnam being a critical piece in the support of pro-Western governments in southeast Asia. If I recall, some of Eisenhower's generals were supportive of a plan to drop nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. Also, Ho Chi Minh was viewed as being allied with the USSR when he was actually a staunch nationalist who, although communist, wanted little to no foreign presence in Vietnam. The US military was positioned in Vietnam during Kennedy's tenure and Johnson inherited that as well. Although, you're not wrong when you say what you say. Johnson certainly over-extended himself in Vietnam to the detriment of the United States and his mishandling of the situation cost him the presidency.

However, you can not tell me that Johnson was bad on the domestic front. After all, he was key in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which are arguably the two most substantial pieces of American legislation in the 20th century. He was idealistic in his pursuance of the "Great Society," which established Medicaid and Medicare. And the "War on Poverty," was surely something with great aspirations and it lessened the level of American poverty.

Johnson really is an intriguing figure because of his stubbornness, domestic triumphs, and foreign failures. I feel that with most of what he did, his heart was in the right place. Johnson is regarded as one of the most politically savvy presidents of all time whereas W. is one of the least. Johnson was able to build a coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats in order to beat the southern Democrat filibuster in the Senate to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

 

It's not an energy strategy, it's a national security strategy. We've been hearing the alternative energy blather since NIXON. It just isn't a viable commercial approach to LOW COST energy. Decades have proven that out. Oh, it's easy to just repeat "green jobs" or "renewable energy", but guess what, it's not a REALITY. Not even close. Unless you are happy with your utility bill being 10x higher or paying $10 for a gallon of gas. Are you?

The libs just aren't grounded in reality on the topic of energy.

 

Hands down LBJ was the worst.

 

I doubt any source other than crude and coal will even account for the majority of energy in my lifetime.

 

Were you alive when Lyndon Baines Johnson was president? Although saddled with JFK's escalating Vietnam conflict, he still passed more social reforms and far reaching civil rights legislation than any other President.

I was enthralled by JFK, mostly because I was young and idealistic. However, LBJ accomplished a heck of a lot more.

 

It's funny seeing conservatives try and do their best to tear down the LBJ and Carter administrations.

How soon they forget that Nixon campaigned on ending the war and yet continued to make the same mistakes LBJ made regarding Vietnam for another 5 years.

And it's funny how conservatives never mention the energy crisis of 1973. Why is that? And do they ever mention some of the causes of the 1979 oil crisis? No. Just that Carter was to blame.

Typical republican revisionism.