Whom would I choose to communicate, to LEAD and not to manage, to handle our present day problems in the Middle East, to handle our domestic concerns especially concentrating on our border problems? My answer will probably garner a lot of flack from AD members, but I choose, hands down, Ronald Wilson Reagan!

From FDR forward whom would you choose?

That's a tough one. Provided he had learned from the Vietnam mess Lyndon Johnson was, on the domestic front, one of the most sensible modern presidents we've ever had.

How about? a hybrid. LBJ's domestic policy with Clinton's foreign policy.

That wouldn't be perfect, but it would square us as well as possible given the material we're working with

Reagan would talk.. a lot. No help at all...

Ronald Reagan.

He backed the Iranians down.
He terrified hundreds of Grenadian sheep.
He backed the Russians down.

Reaganomics.
Fired 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers (who should have never gone on strike.)
And while roundly derided Just Say No would actually work if anyone tried it.
Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Lent me 10 bucks... OK I can't back that up.

Oh, boy, Turnea...your dream candidate would be my nightmare.

George Bush the first. He was able to obtain a coalition that not only included nearly every Arab country in the Middle East coming to our side against another Muslim country, but they also willingly funded nearly the entire bill of that war. His middle eastern policy was the most simultaneously evenhanded and effective (Carter was even-handed, but uneffective) we have ever seen. A great leader, who didn't micromanage but got the job done. Unfortunately, he left it halfway through, lost the election, and it all collapsed into a mess.

Ah, the Reagan fight is an tradition.

He bought the Iranians out... with weapons.


This is going to be a long debate because we've had it before. Many argue he filibustered while they backed themselves down.
Reagan and the Soviets, What impact did Reagan's policies have?


Don't remind me...

LBJ had the great society while he could pass it. Civil Rights acts including bans on housing discrmination, beefed up education, Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, PBS

It would have been better had not Nixon gutted the whole deal.

Edited to add:
Got to give GHWB credit on foreign policy I actually liked NAFTA, but what good was he domestically?

I'm not fighting with you, you're categorically wrong on each point. I mean that in a nice way.

Of course, but hear me out here.

When did Reagan ever back the Iranians down?
(First) Hostage crisis?

Nope. That was the Algerian Accords.

Hezbollah? Iran-Contra.

We we had to pay for shooting one of their planes down?
Seriously, on that point I don't even see the argument.

I have to agree with the lady here. George Bush was the first true 'global leader,' a term coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski to describe the president after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He had a deeper understanding of the Middle East than any president since F.D.R, in part because he surrounded himself with intellectual equals and partly because he read-up on the subject matter. George Bush had the political will and the support to take action in the Middle East, something Clinton and his own son attempted and had a measured success. The larger goal, Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, was met; which was the purpose of the American intervention in the Persian Gulf.

Ike, he warned us about the military industrial threat and ended the Korean War without a defeat. A man who knew combat and the horrors war brings. Domestically, the highway system we enjoy today is, by and large, a product of the Eisenhower years.

Concerning GHWB I have to say the the Gulf War wasn't the most difficult of diplomatic situations.

Hussein had been ticking off that whole region since the seventies and invading another country for the purpose of conquest is about the one thing you can do that will get the whole UN on your case.

I can't think of one modern president who could have screwed that up.

Edited to add:
..and LBJ was a Silver Star honoree.

I would say FDR would knock this one out of the park-he was the best foriegn policy guy possibly in US history- but, in all fairness, GH Bush was really, really good at the ME, and he was pragmatic.

I guess the best that could have really happened would have been Clinton - he was a genius with domestic issues- that art of "compromise" that seems to be lost on the US these days- you know, that word "compromise" is what made the US even possible as a nation, now we seem to think it is a dirty word.

I would have to say Clinton was the most competant modern leader in our history, since FDR. Eisenhower was actually quite bad in foriegn policy- we have Iran hating us because of him, Guatamela was and is a complete disaster, then Chile etc.

No, I would not want Eisenhower- but domestically he was pretty good.


Clinton is the obvious choice- he was pragmatic, smart, knows diplomacy.

I'm not so sure of that. Saudi was one of the primary financial contributors to Saddam. Most every country that backed us in that invasion had been a Saddam supporter just a few short years before.



Well, Clinton received both the tech stock windfall and the huge cut to military spending windfall. To use Turnea's verbage, I can't think of one modern president who would have screwed that up.

He definitely was deviously clever. Remember when the Russians came to Pristina airport and cut off our forces and drew them back? He just pretended that it was all going according to plan and met them with greetings and cheer. "How great of you to help us! OH, yes of course we’ll pull back now that we see you have it all under control….."

Yes, exactly- GW could never have had the competence needed in that kind of situation- that is EXACTLY the right leader at the right time- avoided a showdown, saved face, let the other guy become mired up hip deep in the problem, and punted responsibility to it's security- all just by quickly assessing the situation and dealing with it CORRECTLY right off the pop. He even gained the respect of the Russians by this little personal "coup" in diplomacy.

There is a prime example why we need HIM NOT his wife back in the white house.

he may be corrupt- but at least he is competant in running the country.

From FDR forward whom would you choose?

I've been thinking about this one and my answer might surprise some people. While I think Reagan was the best President for America at the time, I'm not so sure he'd be as good a fit for today's world. My choice for today's America would instead be JFK. Fiscally responsible on the domestic front, some might even say :::gasp:: conservative, and a pretty tough guy when it came up to confronting foreign threats as he demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were within an eyelash of World War III, the closest we're ever been and JFK never blinked. I think he'd probably be equally adept at handling the terrorist threats we face today. So my vote goes to him.


Aquilla

I actually was of the same opinion for a while- but then I remembered the bay of pigs fiasco- while his cuban missle crisis stand was the right leader at the right time, the bay of pigs was a major embarrasment- how did you come to terms with that one Aquilla?

The Bay of Pigs was certainly an inauspicious way to start a Presidency, but I'm inclined to give JFK a bit of a pass on that one. Remember the invasion had been planned by the Eisenhower Administration and in fact most of the pre-invasion operations had taken place prior to JFK becoming President. At the time JFK approved the invasion itself I'm not so sure that he hadn't yet been able to fully establish his senior leadership team. And, no question it was a complete fiasco. RFK wrote in one of his books that his brother looked at him after the disaster and said something to the effect of "I could go down as the first President to face impeachment before I even have a chance to appoint my full cabinet".

But, he recovered from it and learned. By the time the Missile Crisis came around, JFK did have his people in place and was able to demonstrate his outstanding leadership abilities. It is that demonstrated ability that makes me think he'd be a good person to have in the Oval Office today.


Aquilla

I concur, but one of the reasons I didn't pic him, possibly the real reason, is really, sadly, we didn't get enough of JFK- I think we would have had a very different nation had he and his brother both won the presidency (again in JFKs example)- I don't think civil rights issues would have been such a fiasco either etc etc- he seemed to be an extrodinary leader, pragmatic and forward thinking- and his brother Bobby was very similar in every way IMHO.

I believe, in the bay of pigs fiasco- that JFK worried too much about "plausible deniability" - a holdover from some very disasterous Eisenhower/Nixon policies. That is a weakness IMHO

That being said- he, and his brother, sadly, will always be a ? mark in history, for what they MIGHT have accomplished had they not so very unfairly been stolen from us.

The only reason I didn't pick him in every instance would be that we really just didn't have enough time to get to know him, which is a tragedy as well.

JFK detractors will tell you that his short time in office meant he never had the chance to really screw it up. And, they may have a point, but that is something we'll never know. I do know he was a strong leader and committed to doing what he thought was the best thing for this country. I think he would have been pretty damn effective today, and I don't think we'd have seen what happened in Vietnam happen under him. But, that's an entirely different topic that I'll start a thread on one of these days.

On a side note, since you brought up RFK, that would have been an interesting situation had John served out his two terms followed by Bobby. I had a personal connection to Bobby because his press secretary went to school with my father and was one of my dad's closest friends in college. That got us a "back stage pass" when Bobby was campaigning in Denver in 1968 shortly before his death. I even got a "photo-op" with him. Talk about being a fox in the henhouse. It was interesting to hear some of the conversations in that room among the Democrats that supported RFK. They hated Nixon with a passion and thought they could defeat him, but the person that really scared them was Ronald Reagan. I heard one guy say flat out that if " Reagan runs, we're screwed".(he was talking about 1972, they had 1968 wrapped up they thought) Out of respect for my dad's friend, I didn't laugh out loud, but I did have a giggle or two inside. Ironic that that was one of the few times in my life I've ever agreed 100% with a Democrat.

I do know that an RFK v Reagan campaign would have been one hell of a show. I'd have paid money to attend one of those debates!

Aquilla

Ronald Reagan had no mind, and that is true of the most of the time he spent in the White House. He was a spokesperson and figurehead for the people behind him. So it is always somewhat droll to see him characterized as a great leader.

Although I have great respect for Lyndon Johnson, his inability to extract the nation from Vietnam, and even his later insistance that Humphrey uphold the war policy during the election, rules him out.

JFK and GB the First both stood about two feet tall. Nixon stood taller, but cared more about his own grandeur than anything else, and was a dangerous criminal into the bargain.

Clinton was an intelligent buffoon; GWB is an unintelligent buffoon.

I was going to say that JFK was an Ivy League playboy posing as president. But this is not quite fair. He did pursue civil rights in Arkansas and he did have a "strong" foreign policy. The problem with his policy is that it almost resulted in global thermonuclear war, and might well have done so, had he lived. He was, among all the presidents considered, the most inflexible, bull-headed cold warrior -- though he dressed it up in elegant language. It was he who got us involved in Vietnam. JFK, arguably, is one of the worst presidents the United States has ever had.

That leaves just three candidates: FDR, HST and DDE. Each has much to recommend him, but since I think that today's problems require sheer common sense and level-headedness more than anything else, I would choose Eisenhower.

Dude- CR, I knew this was coming.

JFK got us into Vietnam, left the Cuban exiles to die and almost got us nuked, was a non-prescription drug addict, and a philanderer.

What were his good points again? Oh- he was rich and pretty. Bobby was about the same.

Name JFK's accomplishments, not his statements. Go for it. LBJ was the civil rights guy... let's get down to brass tax. JFK is nearly as bad as Clinton, but strangely liberals love them both.

Reagan's impact on America's destiny and the landscape of the free world is undisputable. His foresight and trickle down economics has basically changed the policy of nearly every Western Society on the planet. Reagan's ability to see the value of lifting import tariffs (and other absurd protectionist policy) has allowed for a more global economy.

If Mr. Reagan were alive, he'd be the guy for us. Sure- Democrats hate/hated him, but why again do historians rank him as one of the best Presidents??? Hmmmm... because he got a lot done for the better.



Vlad, please. Use one example. A fact. I realize you're could possibly because Reaganite policy helped to cause the downfall of contemporary communism, but man... umm... use one fact please.

from Aquilla...


Aquilla- the issue I have with this is that the congress was staunchly Democratic, and our policy in Vietnam that got us into the mess we had was basically due to these people. We won basically every battle in Vietnam. Congressional oversight into the methods and practices forced our hand. JFK wouldn't have done anything different. His inability to understand the Monroe doctrine and his paranoia of Russian and Communist expansion caused both Vietnam and Cuba. Those are basically facts....



One more thing. This is a strange choice, but Eisenhower was a GREAT military leader, but really didn't change much for the better while in the White House. For that matter, Westmoreland or MacArthur (heck- or ol' Stormin' Norman) would've been just as good.

Look, I voted for freaking Eisenhower, so that swipe about Reagan's supposed role in the fall of the Soviet Union, which is ridiculously exaggerated, was dumb.

What, an example of Ronald Reagan having no mind? It was obvious. You can think what you like about "his" policies, but the man himself was a very affable mannikin for shaking hands and delivering speeches. I remember during his first term saying to a Republican friend of mine, "This man has no mind, he's a zombie who gives good speeches," and the reply was, "You're a biased judge." Well, didn't it turn out later that the man had a debilitating brain disease, known for destroying people's minds? And didn't he testify in court that he couldn't remember crap about Iran-Contra? I doubt that on any day that he was president, he could've told anyone what he had for dinner the previous evening.



He was stong in common sense -- a trait definitely not shared by McArthur or Westmoreland. He may not have made things much better, but he definitely didn't make them much worse. Unlike "Reagan" and GWB, for example.

I'm not so sure about this, Aevans. As CR pointed out, JFK didn't really have that long in office and most of his problems (Bay of Pigs, etc) happened very early in his presidency. I tend to believe it was an attempt on his part to maintain some sort of a continuity in US foreign policy from the Eisenhower administration until he could get his legs under him and begin to develop his own policy. If one compares his actions during the Bay of Pigs disaster with his actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis the difference is night and day. I believe the later to be the true sign of JFK's leadership.

Now, on to Vietnam. I lay the entire Vietnam war at Eisenhower's feet with possibly a little help from Truman. They laid the groundwork that led us into that nightmare. And, it was less an attempt to stop communist expansion in the beginning than it was to support continued French colonial rule in Indochina. I am reminded of a scene from the movie Patton where he expresses frustration at a decision Eisenhower made where Patton says to his commanders, "This is what happens when your commander stops being an American and starts being an Ally". I don't know that Patton ever really said this or not, but Eisenhower's decisions regarding Vietnam sure seem to support the idea that he was placing the desires of the French over the best interests of the US. In retrospect I believe firmly that we could have avoided the entire war in Vietnam had we made better decisions based on practical American interests back in the 1950's. I don't know if JFK could or would have reversed course there or not, we may have already been too far down the road, but I doubt he could have done any worse than what was eventually done.


Aquilla

You are overlooking temperament aevans176. Eisenhower's disposition was much more moderate than the three generals you mention. He was, according to presidential historian Robert Dallek, also able to work across party lines with Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn.

I've always thought that the blessing of Eisenhower's election was that we didn't get Douglas MacArthur.

1) "Historians" is a misnomer- because they were alive during Reagan's tenure. There is not one single positve thing that can be atributed to Reagan- Causation=correlation=causation kinda thing- Reagan was good for one thing and one thing only- bringing the religious right to power. Otherwise- he is "all hat and no cattle". As with the very thread I started on the cold war and Reagan- there is absolutely 0 evidence that Reagan had, well, any kind of influence whatsoever on internal Russian politics- in fact, quite the opposite- as Putin is very much in power today- part of the very power structure that Reagan loved to hate. Reagan was truly a "stump with eyes"- and extremely corrupt- far more corrupt, than Clinton's regime- which, curiously- when it is all about "character"- Reagan lovers are strangly forgetful

2) Eisenhower made some serious blunders- though I like the guy, and some of his domestic policies, if judged in the context of the time- but his foriegn policy was horrible, and led to the rule of the defense industrial complex that we have today- the very thing he went out warning us about. Guatamala, Iran are two HUGE blunders of thier times- and Eisenhower would be directly responsible with the conflict in the middle east with Iran and Iraq. Iran hates us because of our toppling of the popular goverment and the installation of the Shah. That alone makes him unable to make the CORRECT hard decisions neccesary today- it is not just about "I believe I am right"- it is the ability to change when your plan is discovered to be a failure- something, strangely, no president has been able to do except Clinton- and when they do- they are critisized for "flip flopping"

3) LBJ was amazingly effective in getting legislation passed, but as pointed out, micro-managed the war, and his ego and need for external grandizment was his downfall has well. If it is specific legislation dealing with the president's wish list of laws passed- LBJ was the runaway king of effective.


That leaves us with Clinton and JFK, in reality, of folks that seem to be able to make pragmatic decisions based on the situation at hand vs idealogy and "handlers".

So, JFK seems to come out on top, as a wild card because he simply doesn't have a record of time in office.

That is true and I thought about it when selecting Eisenhower. But it surprises me that you raise these points and yet uphold either Kennedy or Clinton. Along the militaristic, interventionist dimension, these two make Eisenhower look like Caspar Milquetoast. Kennedy practically set off World War III, for crying out loud, and unlike some here, I set Vietnam down to him, not Eisenhower. He tried on multiple occasions to have Fidel Castro assasinated (how's that for poetic justice)? He spent most of his time in the White House boffing secretaries. He would be my absolute last choice, except for GWB himself. From Clinton we got Somalia and the air war against Serbia, to name just a couple of his escapades.

I am conflicted about Eisenhower, since I do blame him for the things you mention, and also for McCarthy. Given the tenor of the times, you have to wonder if Eisenhower could have done anything about these things if he'd wanted to. Maybe I should revisit my decision and just pick FDR. But it seems to me that Eisenhower had a certain moderation and innate good sense that has been notably lacking in our recent leaders.

Umm... Please debate the facts.

People continually argue the anti-Reagan/Pro-JFK angle.

Please debate what JFK did well. Name a couple of things, and I'll happily help to show that Reagan's policies and leadership made changes world-wide. Iran Contra was basically an effort to keep a necessary operation out of the global limelight. I don't fault him for it, as it was something any of us would've done in the same circumstance.

I think the problem people have with JFK is that they really liked him, what he had to say, how he looked, his demeanor, etc. What does that have to do with leadership? Bobby Kennedy was about the same story.

Well-JFK got us operationally into Vietnam, regardless of who you lay blame on. The Vietnam war operationally started with JFK. The Bay of Pigs sent Pro-American Cubans to their deaths, many of them brutally. JFK didn't lift a finger. Then the Missle Crisis almost got us nuked. How long was he President again?? ...

(Oh- and by today's standards, he'd never survive our media. He was a drug user and slept around. Not that it necessarily made him a bad leader, but surely not a moral pillar)

I'd let some people argue guys like FDR or others, but the JFK argument is all smoke and mirrors.. and people say Hillary is trying to "buy her way into the White House"....

What, isn't it a fact that Reagan couldn't remember crap about Iran-Contra? That he had Alzheimers? That many people, this person included, doubted all along that his mind was all there, even before his disease was disclosed?

The context of the question posed for debate here is the right person for today's world. It is not surprising that the Reagan haters here would use this thread as an excuse to beat up on Reagan (again) like they do pretty much every time his name is brought up even in the context of his death. I've grown to expect that around this forum. Oh well.....

I chose JFK over Reagan because of the context of today's world posed in the question. Both were strong, intelligent leaders who knew how to define and explain their policies to the American people and who knew how to get those policy goals accomplished. I don't know how JFK would have dealt with terrorism, but I suspect he would have been pro-active as he was during the Missile Crisis. Reagan did have to deal with terrorism, and to be honest, much as I respect him and his Presidency, he didn't do very well in that aspect. When Hezbollah terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut and killed our people we should have and could have struck back. We knew exactly where they were and we had the assets in place to take them out. There was an operational plan in place and we literally had Navy pilots strapped in and ready to execute it and it was called off at the last moment. Instead, we turned tail and ran. Reagan stood up to the Soviets and brought them down despite what the Reagan haters say. But, when it came to the terrorists, the kinds of terrorists we face today, he backed off. For that reason, and that reason alone, I chose JFK over him for today's world. I don't think JFK would have backed off.


Aquilla

I may hate Reagan- for his roll in central America- me being there and all, and seeing his support of terrorists- it is WRONG decisions in context of this debate- ones that you can actively and accurately atribute to him- illogical and unfounded hero worship aside - there isn't really anything that can be quantifiably linked to Reagan as a policy that had ANY direct positive bearing on the world in any measurable way.

You can have your little temple to Reagan all you wish Aquilla- just as someone can believe in Gawd- but a belief system should not be engaged in debate as a "fact" unless there is some, easily accesablet to all, quantify-able fact.
'
Fact- when the barracks were bombed- Reagan did nothing. his spending on defense was out of control and led to wanton waste. Same could be said about many presidents- but in confines of this debate- he was completely ineffective in his entire presidency for, well, anything you can point to and say "here, his signature is all over it"- you simply can't do it.

If you want to hero-worship the guy, and think he is all things to all poeple, fine, but, in light of this debate, it would be nice if you could point to something that is really beyond debate as to his EMPIRCAL and factual effect on some issue was.

For instance- Bay of Pigs, though started prior to JFK, got really screwed up by JFK by his desire to have "plausible deniability"- a lapse in leadership IMHO-

FDR probably IS the only guy really up to the task- for several reasons- his ability to play off infighting in his own administration- while making hard decisions based on facts provided to him.

JFK might have proven himself better in the long run, Eisenhower may have proved himself capable in the realities of the world today due to his pragmatic approach- but FDR is the only one with an empirical, provable track record in dealing with, what was nearly the end of the US- challenges to the very existance of our country.

JFK played one big card game, with very hard stakes, and won- but he didn't do this well day in and day out, as is neccesary in context of this debate.

I disagree with Vladimir's world view of communist regimes, but not all his conclusions as well.

I think Clinton did very well with the global realities presented to him, as they were presented, which also leads to his global popularity.

You're making this way to easy. Ok, let's look at one thing that does "have his signature all over it" - interest rates. Now maybe you were down in Central America or wherever at the time, but back here in the good ole US of A, people were paying credit card interest rates on home loans. Check this out. Look at the rates in 1980. That was the economy Reagan inherited from the absolutely worst President in US history. By 1985, Reagan's economic policies cut the Federal Funds and the Prime Rates both by over 5% and they've continued on that downward trend ever since. "Voodoo economics"? Well, if it is, then that voodoo thing works. It meant people could buy homes and live in a place they could call their own. Look at this map. Reagan creamed Mondale in 1984 in every possible way you can look at it. 58.8% of the popular vote, 525 electoral votes, and nearly 54 and a half million total votes, and this was 20 years ago. Where I come from we call that a genuine butt-whoopin'. And there's a reason for that. Reagan was a great President with sound policies and principles who knew how to connect with the American people. When a hostile Congress wouldn't go along with him, no problem, he'd take it over their heads to the American people and at the end of the day, he'd prevail. Where I come from we call that genuine leadership. And, the wacklibs hate him for that, always have always will, but oh well.....

In response, those of us who apparently "worship at the temple of Reagan" will just recall his immortal words......

"There you go again"

Aquilla

Democratic control of both houses- they run the purse- so, a reasonable argument could be that Reagan had NOTHING to do with it- since he didn't write the budget- and, in fact, it could be very logically argued that it was only congress that restrained Reagan's defense spending back to some small degree, despite his strident demands

Lee Atwater was the Rove of his generation, and, in a cosmic fit of poetic justice, died of a brain tumor, possibly related to his evil doing - if getting elected was the only measure of a politician- the corrupt Alaskan delegation will be the best ever


Once again- nothing you posted has shown anything to do with anything positive, a direct correlation- unless, of course- you credit the dot com boom to Clinton? Or are you only in the habit of crediting Reagan with something he had nothing to do with, while dissing Clinton for something he had nothing to do with?

In the context of this debate- you haven't shown one empircal thing Reagan had done in his entire stay in power, that would lend itself in any meaningful way as far as how he would do things better than the current administration.

There you go again.....

First off you claim.........



Then you say.......



Now back where I come from they call that a-tryin' to have your cake and eat it too..... Not a bad idea if you can get away with it. But, you can't.

You asked for "empirical evidence" and I gave you interest rates. Do the math. Reagan inherited an economy in the dumpster, a foreign policy (if there even was one) in shambles, a military in disrepair and American morale at a low not seen since the Depression. And he took on the job with a wave and a smile and told the American people, 'together we can fix this". And he did, and he did more than that....

In his final address upon leaving the Presidency Ronald Reagan said.....



and later on....



In Peggy Noonan's book, "When Character was King", she writes of a conversation she had in 2001 with a Navy Captain.



That captain's name? Captain Bill Goodwin, first commander of CVN76 - the USS Ronald Reagan.

Empirical? I don't know, but real? You bet. I know I won't change your mind, and frankly I don't really care. Dis Reagan all you want, ignore history, revise it, twist it, skew it, even deny it. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Those of us who know the truth will just say.....

"There you go again"


Aquilla

Then, once again- if you credit him with some kind of economic panacea- do you credit Clinton with the dot com boom?

I would say non-defense domestic spending and all the laws regarding the economy were certainly written and passed by senate democrats- and I would say that they rolled over when it came to defense spending as "pork is as pork does"- so really, I am very consistant- I blame the runaway spending on dems and reagan as president. - Dems were quite afraid of Reagan's mandate, fortunately, he was too stupid and brain addled to really capitalize on his "voo-doo economics" (which, BTW, reaganomics are not even real economics- they are just terms of pandearment - )

yes, facts change my mind- not belief systems.

Hero worship is a dangerous thing, especially blind hero worship.

Which is yet another reason to NEED a person who's acclaim are matched by MEASURABLE actions-

today we need a leader NOT to make fancy speeches, while demonizing portions of our society- instead, we need a leader that ALL Americans can stand behind, not just starry eyed hero worshippers with no real basis in reality for thier worship.

I believe FDR commanded that kind of respect of EVERY american, not just those on one side of the spectrum.

Eisenhower, FDR, JFK all had it- Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes did not.

to me, the ability to unite the nation would be one of the "biggies", followed by real world examples, not "I believe him to be a hero, so he is" type of mentality- that is precisely the type of thing that leads to division, NOT unity.

Blind hatred is even more damaging.

Just thought I'd throw that in because frankly, you're making this way to easy, CR. How in the hell can I debate you when you end up debating yourself? (and losing I might add)

Let's see what's wrong with the following picture shall we? Your words.....



Ok, Reagan was too stupid to capitalize on his economic policy, yet he managed to get it passed by a Democrat-controlled congress and that led to the horrific result of lowing interest rates by 5% in his first term in office. Yeah, that was really a dumb idea alright. Goodness knows how the economy would have performed if Reagan was smart. Maybe the banks would be paying people for taking out home loans? Works for me!

And then you write about the Democrats being "afraid of Reagan's mandate"..... Most interesting. Let's explore that a bit shall we? Websters defines the word 'mandate' as the following......



Let's go with definition #2 and accept that Reagan did indeed have a mandate from the people. It's a reasonable thing to accept given his electoral advantage over his opponents. Nearly 60%, 49 states in 1984. Not bad, not too bad at all.

Then we move on in CR's post to the following.....



In 1940, FDR in his second term bid received a little under 55% of the vote.

In 1956, Ike in his second term bid received a little over 57% of the vote.

In 1960, JFK in his only bid for the Presidency received 49.72% of the vote.

in 1984, Reagan in his second term bid received nearly 59% of the vote.

Do the math. Do the math, then come back here and tell me all about how stupid ole senile Reagan never had any respect from the American people. Tell me how he divided this country. Do the math. Do the math on interest rates and compare the state of this country in 1980 to where it was in 1988. Do the math dude, take off the hate blinders and come back and tell me how stupid ole Reagan didn't do anything in his time in office. And, if you're honest about that, we can talk about that Berlin Wall. You remember that don't you? the one that Reagan demanded be torn down? It was in all the papers. I've got a picture of a section of that wall and I've never been to Berlin. But, I used to live in Simi Valley, California and a section of that former wall of oppression is there at the Reagan Library, 20 feet from where he lies in rest. Yeah, stupid ole Reagan, inept as a President. All he did was to set out to build a shining city on the hill and change a nation. He ended up changing the world.


Aquilla

So, let me get this straight- you don't credit Clinton with the dot com boom- but you do credit reagan during his time- and you actaully believe that Reagan was a "uniter" of the country as well? Do you think FDR had the same large part of the population that was thoroughly disgusted by him? Reagan had a talent for pulling the Christian right to the polls- but he certainly DID NOT unite the country, in fact, you can pretty much see the divide we have today, 27 years later, being torn open during the Reagan admin.

The country was solidly behind FDR in WW2, not so for Reagan.

BTW- I don't "blindly" hate Reagan- I hate him because he supported terrorists that murdered women and children in cold blood- a very good reason.

There is a difference between hero worship of a myth, a myth no one can really defend- and hating someone because they did horrible things to innocent poeple, even by proxy.

Aquilla- the very fact that you and I are having this heated debate over Reagan is precisely the reason why he would be a HORRIBLE person to throw into todays mix as the supreme leader- he just doesn't inspire the 50% of the country that dislike himto follow him.

There is very little debate over whether FDR was a great leader- actually- you see really none at this time, certainly nothing as heated as the debate over Reagan.

A great leader is more than his ability to mobilize his "base"- it is to gain the basic respect of the opposition- something FDR had, Eisenhower had, and JFK PROBABLY had- hard to tell with the length of his stay in office.

LBJ had the ability to "git er done"- but he wasn't a great leader. I equate LBJ and Reagan about the same- they got some of thier ideology posted- but it wasn't really good for the nation- but they were effective enough as far as thier ability to get bad legislation passed or vetoed.

Niether were great leaders, but they had some personal success while in office. Both were polarizing figures that further divided the country, in LBJs case, for decades, and it seems the same for Reagan at this time.

From FDR forward whom would you choose?

Have anyone noticed that, when discussing great presidents, all the lists show those who started/presided over a war? No one ever mentions those who kept the country at peace. I guess we are a warrior nation that is uncomfortable with peace.

The more I think about it, the more I think the criteria we should use for presidents should be how well they adhere to the Constitution of the United States and how good the quality of life is for US citizens during their term. If I were judging on the quality of life alone, Clinton would rank #1. If I were to rank a US president by how well he waged war, then it’s a toss-up between FDR and JFK. Taking both waging war and maintaining a decent quality of life, I’d choose JFK. None of the presidents since the Civil War have really adhered to the Constitution; they’ve manipulated it to suit their own ends. Ford comes closest, and nobody would consider him anywhere near #1.

Since I don’t believe war is the answer to terrorism, and armed guards and Berlin-like walls are not the answers to our immigration problems, and if I were forced to choose from the modern presidents since FDR, I’d have to pick Clinton. JFK just wasn’t in office long enough to make an assessment. I’d like to see our Constitutional rights restored, more focus on the well-being of Americans (i.e. sane economic policies), and see diplomacy used as a primary, not secondary (or worse) tactic. During his terms, he negotiated peace between Israel and Jordan, helped to broker the Good Friday Peace Accord between England and Northern Ireland, and worked with NATO to negotiate peace in Bosnia. I shudder to think what our current president would have done in similar situations.

edited to correct a truly Freudian slip!!

None.

Thomas Jefferson.

He would tell you that ***WE***do not have a problem in the middle east. The neocrazies and the zionuts do.

Jefferson would tell you we had open borders with Mexico until recently and they were never a problem.