Come on - that's a pretty revisionist interpretation. It's well documented that his support of the Civil Rights legislation caused a massive exodus of white Southerners from the Democratic Party. And Johnson knew this would happen - it's rumored that after signing the legislation, Johnson said "We have lost the South for a generation." I won't claim that Johnson's reasons for passing the Civil Rights legislation were pure (they weren't), but it's ridiculous to claim that he "knew he could make huge gains for his party" - on the contrary, he knew that it would hurt his party (and it did).
wait, so now the Iraq war was for oil? what happend to WMD's and War on Terror? So Bush lied and took us to war? Doesnt that make him one of the worst presidents ever? Especially since, GOD came down and TOLD him to go to War....God? lol.... There were no WMD's and more people want to kill us....And on top of that it's a different kind of war, and we need to fight it differently.
No, there is no "admission" to "being politically duplicitous." If you read more carefully, you would find the constant link "conservative" regardless for whom I voted. Would you like to compare credentials?
LBJ was campaigning for civil rights even during his time in Congress. He'd always been a strong supporter of civil rights. He steered through the first civil rights bill in 8 decades while he was in the senate during 1957. Johnson was born and raised in conservative and segregationist Texas. As a teacher, Johnson believed segregation condemned the South to educational and economic backwardness. http://www.history.com/minisite.do?...t_type_id=58190&display_order=6&mini_id=58198 He spoke out against it in order to be elected, and he spoke about it that the time. But he worked as a Senator to get that legislation passed. That was before he was VP, worked with Kennedy, etc. LBJ had always been in favor of civil rights.
I did read carefully...especially the part "Also, I was a conservative Democrat up until 1980. Well, no, that's not entirely true since I did vote for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972". Wow, you must have some good credentials! Maybe you should run for prez? Have t_j or liltess as your secretary of the treasury, since you guys love boasting so much about how much you know. You know come to think about it, shrub has better credentials that me as well. Wow, I must be totally wrong about him. + And I thought only liberals were elitists.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, as passed, did as much for Civil Rights as the Patriot Act did for patriotism. It may not have passed without Johnson's amendment, but that amendment removed the teeth the Act, and the version passed was universally condemned by Civil Rights leaders as worse than no bill at all. They were right, as Southern States were able to further restrict African American suffrage, and even fewer voted in the next couple of elections. That's not to say that it didn't accomplish its objective. Its objective was to create the illusion of doing something about Civil Rights and cast Johnson as a serious national political figure and a potential Presidential Candidate. Pandering at its worst. All of this was claimed by Johnson and Civil Rights leaders that he won over from his Presidency onward. I think we should trust the voting record more than opinions.
not pretty bad, horrible that's more emphatic to me ron paul guy? I had a chance to sit down and spend some time with him after church a few weeks ago and I took my wife out to lunch instead. Just because I like him as a doctor and congressman doesn't mean I take it as serious as you think. I don't need ron paul to explain govt. debt, failed policies, globalization, democratic socialism, statist agendas or protection of civil liberty. I value constitutional protection of individual liberty, individual freedom, life, and individual ownership. What I do love about ron paul are the discussions I've had with him about the hypocrisy of politics. He has candid conversations with people in government you only get to see through media spins. Edit- I voted for Bush, and I really can't give a good reason. I just made a mistake. Also, I think presidents should be of high moral character, honest, and faithful to the spirit and intent of the US constitution, I believe in a government of the people that respects individual liberty and I think the intent of many of the founding fathers was to limit federal powers over said liberties and to leave those things not enumerated specifically by the constitution to the individual states.
I could just as easily left out the Nixon part, but I believe in being forthright and truthful. As far as being an elitist, well, I can't really be the judge of that. However, the way you are pontificating on everything, I just thought you might want to strut your stuff rather than show it's just stuffing. During my media years I met Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush the Elder. That does not make me any smarter but I do have some insights you may not, or at least the lack of which you have shown thus far.
I voted for W... probably the only time I've ever done so. However, you can make a good argument that Nixon should be in the lead because it's impossible to imagine the current administration without the personalities being shaped in large part by Nixon and the aftermath of his administration.
Wow. I am impressed, your insight clearly puts you over the top. Please do tell how my opinion is pontificating and yours are insightful? Because all your really giving is your opinion, right? No matter how "insightful" you believe it to be.
Thanks for the history lesson. I remember Volker cured stagflation by enormous interest rates hikes and a large recesssion therebye created. Were the interest hikes and recession after Carter?
that's understandable and I understand where you're coming from, based on your values you are disillusioned with the power of the federal government. I just don't think outside of it not being constitutional, its that bad. don't mean to label you a ron paul freak
Maybe this poll should have been limited to "former" presidents... Let's not be too premature, let history decide: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
It's also from people who knew Johnson at the time. Civil rights had always been a project he was behind. Again nothing had been done regarding civil rights for almost 100 years, and Johnson helped get something done prior to ever working as VP or JFK. Civil rights was always something he was interested in progressing. To claim otherwise isn't really accurate.
You're right. The current president would always top such a list. Half the country will always hate the current president - whoever it is - more than they hate Hitler.
yeah but that's the side effect of the medicine. Carter took the brunt and Reagan was the beneficiary.
He has the lowest rating ever in the history of the gallup poll. The gov't debt increased 50%. We are in a stupid war. The banking system is on the brink of collapse. Inflation is high. Food and gas prices are high. He is devalued the dollar by 50% (which might not be a bad thing). He has failed at everything he has done in life and somehow manages to become president and gets re-elected.
I would wager that we will probably see similar results in 20 years, despite your vast experience in the realm of presidential ratings, so eloquently stated, repeatedly, throughout this thread.
