It is easy to form conclusions about how good or bad a President is, so let's make it a little more debatable from the following standpoint:

Which President has been the least competent, considering the duration of his incumbency?

Well I picked the current Bush. Many will probably say surprise surprise but just because he is the current president didnt sway my opinion. I am a president fanatic. I have been ever since I was like 5 and I have never seen a president so at a loss or so out of his league as president. On an alltime scale bush is right up there with Grant, Hoover, Taft, Coolidge and Harding. This isnt a democrat thing either the second most incompetant would be a two way dead heat between probably the most intelligent president we have ever had Jimmy Carter and maybe the slowest and most overrated Ronald Reagan. If I had to rank them from most competant to least it would be.


1) Eisenhower
2) JFK
3) Clinton
4) Bush SR
5) Johnson
6) Nixon
7) Ford
8) Carter/Reagan
10) Bush JR

As my Grandfather used to say, "this is as easy as falling off a log".

George W. Bush stands heads and shoulders above the rest. Why?

Because he is a puppet and without his master he cannot speak. I have never seen a president as incompetent as "Dubya". When I see him making a speech and hestitating for words, I find myself saying the words and trying to get the message to him thru telepathy. But after the gazillionth time I gave up, and that was only after his first year in office.

I find myself striving to find the right word to fit his character and the best one I can come with is INCOMPETENT. Without his name and daddy I don't believe he would ever had graduated from any college, much less Yale and Harvard. That was a joke. But apparently the joke is on the American people until November.

Beyond the easiest ever on this board- hands down winner, with absolutely no competition in the 20th century- GW. No one else comes close. When you absolutely positively want the least competant president- accept no substitute- the man wouldn't make a competent president of the PTA of a town of 35!

GWB most probably has the lowest I.Q. of any president
who ever served our country. All of the others seemed
to have the wherewithal to at least fake some wit and
ability - he lacks a basic facility with the English language,
as seen in numerous public speeches and news conferences.

I honestly feel that he is an embarrassment, in terms of
the way he speaks, and the look of utter confusion, on his
face, when he's asked the simplest of questions.

As dim as Bush is he isnt a Reagan. I would be astonished if Reagans IQ was in triple digits....astonished. He was a C student who went to Eureka college in Illinois....never heard of it? You shouldnt. Ronald Reagan's grasp of reality and history never went beyond the characters he played in movies. Meaning that he couldnt tell the difference between the characters and plots he acted in and real history. Some of Reagan's soundbites make you scratch your head in wonder. He was so inept but he was a press darling because he gave off that grandpa vibe so he was left alone for the most part. The press would simply not go after the old man despite the fact that his adminstration was dirty. They felt sorry for him. Bush rich daddy or not at least went to Yale and Harvard. Reagan is the Forrest Gump of presidents.

[quote=Paladin Elspeth,May 13 2004,11:56 PM]It is easy to form conclusions about how good or bad a President is, so let's make it a little more debatable from the following standpoint:

Which President has been the least competent, considering the duration of his incumbency?[/quote]
Shall we start out with a few random comments from my quotations file..

[quote=George W. Bush]I was raised in the West, the West of Texas. It's pretty close to California, in more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California.

--In Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000[/quote]
[quote=George W. Bush]The fundamental question is, "Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?"
I will be, but until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective.

--In Wayne, Mich., as quoted in the New York Times, June 28, 2000[/quote]
[quote=George W. Bush]Listen, I assure you we won’t be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt. And I suspect other countries won’t either.[/quote]
[quote=George W. Bush]This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end.[/quote]
[quote=George W. Bush]Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment.[/quote]
When the sabers were being rattled that we needed to draw another line in the sand, and finish the job that George the Elder Statesman “had failed to complete;” I called my minister. I asked her, “What can be done to get rid of this idiot?” Without asking for clarification, she referred me to the local Democratic Party chairman and the local peace group.

When I joined the Democratic Party, I listed “George Dumbya Bush” as the person who had recruited me.

Following a top secret junket to Iraq, the world learned that having pardoned the traditional Thanksgiving Turkey, George had to visit a military base to find a hot meal on Thanksgiving.

His administration is filled with advisers who are either giving him bad advice, or phrasing it badly…

[quote]President Bush paid a visit to Michigan this week, but he did not mention that the state has lost 175,000 jobs since he became President. Sixty-five percent of those jobs were in manufacturing -- the backbone of Michigan's economy.

--September 19, 2003 DNC Women’s Vote Center[/quote]
On a recent campaign swing through Michigan, it was noted that the weekly rental for his Canadian manufactured campaign bus, would pay off the mortgage of most Michigan “swing voters.” (“Wealthy Republican” is almost viewed as redundant, by the local media.)

[quote=N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers]Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. We're very used to goods being produced abroad and being shipped here on ships or planes. What we're not used to is services being produced abroad and being sent here over the Internet or telephone wires. The economics is basically the same. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past and that's a good thing.[/quote]
The message Americans are hearing is that technology sector jobs that paid circa $80,000 per annum in the United States are being performed in India for circa $8,000 a year. I hate to think what the telemarketers, on line technicians, and SPAM providers are earning abroad. We are losing American jobs to outsourcing to multinational corporations, and this administration tells us this is “a good thing.”

Despite being married to a librarian, George “W” Bush has an often cited distaste for reading. I would think it an essential part of an administrative job. George’s body language is so transparent that I am even noticing it. (I once opened a door to let in a panicked neighbor. I noticed that she was bleeding, and I heard her tell me she was scared and needed shelter, but my wife had to mention to me later that she had been naked when I let her in.) As GWB was once again endorsing HIS under funded “No Child Left Behind” mandate a few days ago, he was stammering as he tried to read from a TelePrompter. His stated goal was that every child should be able to read at a third grade level before being allowed to pass that grade. I was left wondering if his noted dislike of reading reflects a possibility that he has personally failed to attain that reading level.

David Broder wrote in
a recent column:

[quote]The heads of the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency have failed the president and the country.[/quote]
and

[quote]Despite…failures by those on whom he has relied for military and intelligence advice, President Bush has expressed continued support for them and given no sign that he is about to replace either one.[/quote]
Indeed, at the Pentagon recently, GWB looked away from Rumsfeld as he searched for the words to praise the job he was doing, and pledge his continued support.

Yesterday, I woke to find that Rumsfeld was in Iraq. Twenty four hours later, the two statements that he made which have been quoted the most are “I’ve quit reading newspapers.” and “If anyone thinks that I’ve come here to pour water on a fire, they’re mistaken.” Perhaps his scriptwriter learned firefighting skills in the oil industry, but if that is the type of message that he has managed to deliver to the world at large about how he is handling the problems at Abu Ghraib prison; Rumsfeld has failed his President, and wasted our taxpayer dollars on another useless top secret junket to Iraq.

I can't locate the column at the moment, but another columnist remarked recently something to the effect that failure needs to have consequences, and that he felt both Rice and Rumsfeld had failed the President without any apparent consequences. The gist of his column was that as George Bush can't recognize that he has made mistakes, he can't take corrective actions to avoid future mistakes. Perhaps he simply can't recognize either mistakes or failures in himself or his subordinates. He called upon us, as voters, to remedy that in November.

I have stated elsewhere that I think the Republican Party, for the good of the party, should look for another candidate. Newscasters have repeatedly pointed out for instance, that John McCain is so popular with Democrats that he would make a good V.P. on the Democratic ticket. On the Republican ticket, John McCain for President might have some coattails for the local Republicans to ride in on, instead of being a candidate who is slipping on a regular basis and whose main hope is a weak Democratic ticket and riding to re-election on the coattails of his fellow Republicans.

George W. Bush must have had some good advice at one point…

[quote= Barbara Bush]
War is not nice.[/quote]
Unfortunately, someone advised him that being ahead in the polls was enough of a reason to run for President. Most great Presidents chose to run out of a sense of duty and service to their nation. Most great Presidents also have recognized that in a democracy, they need to respond to the needs of the voters.

[quote=George W. Bush]I’m the commander; I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

-- (Source: The Independent)[/quote]

Perhaps he is the great leader the true believers profess him to be...but if he is, he needs to hire better speech writers, or learn to read his TelePrompter at a skill level of at least the third grade.

Really kind of a tough question:



1. The President that held office during 20% inflation, the same man that sent a rescue mission into Iran that made the US Military look like the Keystone Cops, the Man that, when Afghanistan was invaded came up with the brilliant counter of Boycotting the Olympics, watched over months and months of Gas lines and slowed down an already slow economy with the famous 55 mph national speed limit?

or

2. The President that sent more troops to Vietnam and allowed the slaughter to happen at the Bay of Pigs?

hmmmmmm,

I'll flip a coin.

And the winner is:

James Earl Carter


Red

This is so easy Dubya could get it right.

I’ve always felt that one of the strongest characteristics to possess either in a relationship, as a professional or in any instance is the ability to know when you’ve made mistakes, admit to them, learn, work to correct and move on.

At his last State of the Union, Mr. Strategery did ok answering the first 5-6 scripted questions. But when asked what mistakes he’s made and the lessons learned from them, his response was an embarrassment to this country and certainly cheapened the education of anyone who possesses a Yale degree or Harvard MBA.

There may be nothing worse that combining arrogance with ignorance. For a President to have these qualities is outright dangerous.

The rest of the Presidents listed have their strengths and weaknesses and you could probably make a solid argument for ranking the remaining nine in any order.

This is a difficult poll, way too much competition.

I have only met one of the individuals named above, and though he is very intelligent, he is one of the ten worst presidents of all time - that would be James Earl Carter.

But I think of the last ten presidents the one the caused the most lasting damage, both during his presidency and his prior career would have to be Eisenhower.

The man had the power and opportunity to free Eastern Europe from the Soviet Empire in 1956. So what did he do, played golf. After his incredible screw up during the Second World War (which his stupidity extended by six months) the United States had a real chance of setting the world on path towards peace and democracy, and for eight years the president did nothing.

The US urged all European nations to grant independence to their Asian colonies. All except France. Instead the US supported the French in IndoChina to the point once even the French gave up and went home, Eisenhower sent in US troops to support the corrupt South Vietnam government.

That time can not possible be made up and we have a world majority countries of dictators and oligarchies. This can be laid on Eisenhower's door.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by competent.

If you mean who has been the most ineffective in pushing policies, I don't think GWB would win. He's been enormously effective in pushing through the agendas of his major campaign contributors and the PNAC.


If it's about IQ, then it's a close one between Reagan and GWB.

However, If you want to ask which president is the least competent in maintaining a country with high ideals and keeping it free, GWB is the hands down winner.

Some highlights of that particular imcompetence:
*the 1984ish Patriot Act
*the Iraq War
*squandering good will of international community
*whosale environmental destruction
*reversing human rights gains
*reversing many of the rights relating to choice

and the list could go on, bu tI don't have days to keep adding to it

I'm rather surprised that I'm the only Nixon vote. I must believe this to be a somewhat baited issue, and that many of us will (and have) chosen the president that is least furthest from our memories, i.e. Bush or Clinton.

I am no Nixon historian, nor did I live through that era, but I have a feeling that Watergate and the incompetence thereof has to rank pretty high. It's one thing to do something illegal and have people be on to you (Bush II and Clinton) versus something illegal and getting caught red-handed like tricky Dick.

I can't believe the out pouring of 'support' for GeeDub. I also can't believe you guys picked him over Ford, although I know it's a dead heat.

Some intellectual gems from our 38th President...

“Things are more like today than they have ever been before.”

"Eastern Europe was free." (Made during the Ford/Carter debates)

"I watch a lot of baseball on the radio."

"I guess it just proves that in America anyone can be president."

And I don't know what's worse, chockin on a pretzel or heading down a flight of stairs off of Air Force One.

Ford had no legacy, and the only serious event that defined his tenure was the pardon of Richard Nixon.

I mean, for better or worse, Bush has a legacy. Bush's tenure has been defined by quite a few major events and his reaction to them.

Now Bush certainly is no Einstein, but he's no Ford either.

See, to me incompetence means royally screwing up everything his/her gaze falls upon- and though Ford was a running gag- he really didn't screw things up worse, though a case could be made for inaction.

And to add icing to the Titus cake - most of GWs cabinent members ARE ex-Ford execs

I wanted to include each President's actual time in office as a criterion to see if the results would change at all, because how much time each man had to address problems/crises during his administration should be factored in. Presumably the more time a President had in office, the more responsible he would be for a situation being resolved or seeing it "go south."

Gerald R. Ford was a squeaky-clean statesman in Congress who became Vice President and then President because both of those men (Agnew and Nixon) were substantially less than squeaky clean. His legacy is more than the swine flu inoculation program and his well-intentioned but politically suicidal pardoning of Richard Nixon. He deserved a full term of his own to prove that he could accomplish something other than pass the severe scrutiny of Congress. It came out in the hearings that he had never even bounced a check. This man is an Eagle Scout.

Another honorable man, James Earl Carter has a very strong humanitarian bent to this day. This man was nowhere near the master politician of say, Bill Clinton, who was a "policy wonk" and relished his job to the point where he regretted that there are no third terms for Presidents any more. Carter definitely could have used some of the legendary teflon coating of the "Master Communicator" Ronald Reagan who, for all of his lack of expertise, managed to bluff his way into the Soviets believing there was a Star Wars System.

The Gulf War was a resounding success for the first President Bush. But the economy went bad during his term in office. His predecessor's deficit spending came home to roost. Bush was regarded domestically as ineffective, and he did not look believable in his "no quid pro quo" verbal refutation of any involvement in Iran Contra. And bless his heart, he and the rest of the country found out that Ronald Reagan was probably being honest when he testified that he "could not recall" what he had known about the same issue.

Eisenhower might be more to blame than was previously thought regarding the Soviets grabbing up what would be later called their "satellite countries." Korea was not a "war" but a "police action." It might be that his competence needs to be questioned regarding his willingness to see that country remain split and commit U.S. troops to defend the South Koreans ad infinitum.

Lyndon Baines Johnson inherited a relatively small mess called Vietnam that Kennedy took on after the French decided to leave. Eisenhower had sent "advisers" into the area; Kennedy sent more "advisors." It was under LBJ that the war escalated as the result of the alleged attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. To this day many believe that Johnson lied about it to justify sending more and more GIs. The guerilla war continued, and U.S. soldiers were dying. Those who weren't dying often came home with their bodies and/or minds mangled.

Johnson was the same President who can claim credit for Medicare, a system that is flawed but that has provided for seniors to help them survive the years of limited income and increasing health problems.

Kennedy was instrumental in getting the ball rolling with the Civil Rights movement and the inception of the Peace Corps. He should be remembered for that more than for his dalliances. No one can say what this man might have accomplished for good had he lived, the Bay of Pigs fiasco notwithstanding. This was also the man who faced down Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis. For the time he had in office, I don't think he should be judged too harshly.

Carter brokered a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. That the two brave leaders, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, both ended up assassinated for it speaks to the longstanding hatred between arabs and jews. It was not Carter's fault that they were assassinated and that the murderers did not want peace; Carter gave it a hard, honest effort, and Sadat and Begin pursued peace in good faith.

Then there is George W. Bush. With the mandates from the 2000 Republican platform in hand and a paid-down deficit and government surplus, he began his Presidency. The Republican platform called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks Rumsfeld was scrambling to find some way to make Iraq culpable for the death and destruction wrought by these murderers. Afghanistan, the place where Osama bin Laden was living and also the location of several terrorist training camps, was the first country to be attacked.

Then there is Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the "evidence" to the UN of the danger of Saddam Hussein to other countries, and the UN by and large didn't buy it. For all of Saddam's abuses of his own people, he was not trying to invade other countries. There were oil deals amongst the member nations, prompted in some part by American enforcing a trade embargo on Iraq which affected the ordinary Iraqi but couldn't hurt the dictator and his minions.

So George W. Bush, with Tony Blair and the President of Spain on his side, and some other countries, decided he was going to break with precedent and invade Iraq over the objections of the assembly that he was presumably doing this for because of Saddam's violation of Resolution 1441. The Congress, in its effort to keep Bush unhampered, allowed him nearly godlike power in the effort to eradicate terrorism.

Despite Saddam Hussein's rushed agreement to let the UN inspectors in again, Bush launched the invasion. With the military and supplies, not to mention the brains of our generals, we bombed the hell out of Iraq, and after a few fiercely pitched battles we prevailed. Any surprise?

This was done over the objection of millions of protestors all over the world, many of the protests happening right here in the US, who felt that all peaceful diplomatic options had not been exhausted. Bush didn't care.

The occupation phase began. Bush fired all of the Iraqi police and military. The country became a haven for the same terrorists he wanted to put down. Many Iraqis have been detained and/or arrested who are innocent. Some of these were abused before they were released--CBS among other networks who carried their stories. The anger of the Iraqis who formerly welcomed the U.S. troops is rising. We are losing friends faster than we are gaining them in the region.

G.W. Bush has a Republican-controlled Congress that passes his bills, such as increased spending for the war (the $87 billion dollar one that finally included body armor for troops already there--Kerry opposed the price tag of the whole thing so it is somehow his fault that the troops were vulnerable), and the Medicare prescription care bill where his administration intentionally lied about how much it is really going to cost (Republicans as well as Democrats were irate). He is a big spender and he's not going to get "no" from this Congress, even though he should.
He is keeping our forces spred out in the world when they are needed to relieve the troops in the quagmire of Iraq and the once again heard-from country Afghanistan, where supposedly everything was fixed.

The man needs handlers for his public speeches to sound articulate. He couldn't testify before the 9/11 Commission without his precious Vice President at his side. One might suggest that he takes so many vacations because he is so efficient in his duties and can do it, but honestly, who really believes that? One suspects this man is in way over his head. While it could easily be argued that he inherited a lot of the problems, it can also easily be argued that although he was capable of starting two wars and giving Americans some income tax cuts, neither war situation is anywhere near being resolved, and we are suffering economically by escalated job outsourcing, astronomical prices at the gas pump, and a mounting deficit. So hold on to your measly 300 dollarish tax refund for now; it will be called for again and again as Americans continue to fight and die in Iraq and pay for unfunded government mandates from their pockets.

I therefore voted for George W. Bush as the most incompetent President we've ever had. I will spare readers the otherwise inevitable Bushisms that make us worry and sell tons of books.



I've got to agree with you on that.

Edited for typos and content

Intereting comparrison since neither one of these two Presidents recieved a majority of votes in an election.

Good point GM- lack of competence due to the fact that they were both appointed and not elected?

Paladin Elspeth - Excuse me?!?!? Begin died from cancer. he was not assassinated

You're right, it was Yitzhak Rabin:

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1994/rabin-bio.html



http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/rabin/umbrella/



http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/rabin/11-06/




Thank you for the correction. Any other comments?

Wow, I certainly can't add to what Paladin Elspeth put so eloquently in her post. I, too voted for George W. There really isn't much question. Ford was harmless, and as for him being a klutz; as a klutz myself, I can't hold that against him. I mean, George H.W. barfed in the Japanese prime minister's lap...hard to top that for embarrassment. I pondered for a moment about LBJ due to the mess he made of Vietnam, but there's no comparing that to Dubya's all-around gross ineptitude.

Now, if there was a slimy scumbag vote, Nixon would be the hands-down winner.

Edited to add:
Nobel Laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof agrees:

Paladin Elspeth - I agree you had a lot of valid points. We have had a long string of very bad presidents. I really thought that we should have the correct information.

I think that in the long run Eisenhower's legacy was similar to Ford's, except that he didn't do a lot for eight years. At a time when we really needed things to be done. Ford's legacy was he did nothing much at the right time. Eisenhower's neglect cost the world 30+ years of misery.

Carter, because of his refusal to act with any sort of backbone when Iran took over the US Embassy in Teheran led directly to the 1st Gulf War, and to 9/11.

So it is hard to gauge, both have a lot to answer for. Lucky for the US Carter only had one term to get it so wrong.

I voted much earlier than this explanation- I was on of the first three or four, I think- and I seem to be in good company voting for our current President. Despite my sizable bias, I tried to be very fair, and consider only how I thought each President would do given the same circumstances, and not consider whether they had a rough stint due to bad luck or whether I like their politics/etc. I tried to focus on capability.

Additionally, there's gaps in the depth of my knowledge. I let Ford skate because I'm only aware of his bad rep, not of what underlay it. Eisenhower I know little about, too. I consider Carter, Bush I and Bush II to be to some degree victims of bad luck, and Reagan and Clinton unfairly helped by economic cycles- they both reigned over long boom times while crediting almost opposite economic plans. It's the economic cycle, stupid.

So, picturing how each that I was semi-familiar with, I tried to think of who'd I trust to weather a wide variety of presidential challenges well. Bush I and Clinton are both rather smart, knowledgeable men with a penchant for politics. Nixon, who scares me more than any other President, was more of the evil genius mode than a true bumbler. I'm not sure if I buy Reagan's folksy dumb act- I think he was Nixon with charisma. LBJ probably wasn't far off the evil genius mold himself, from what I hear of his career as a legislator. JFK had the bay of pigs, but also saved us during the Cuban missile crisis, and didn't exactly have time to continue to grow in office.

So, despite being wary of picking on the current leader of the opposition party, of the Presidents I feel at all fair in judging, I credit him as having the least 'competence"- not necessarily that I'd rather vote for Nixon than Bush II, just I'd rather ask Nixon to develop a policy remedy to a problem and a strategy for it's enactment, etc.

Although George W. has made a complete disaster out of how he's dealt with terrorism, and has, in fact, jeoprodized the safety of ALL Americans and citizens of the (Free) World over, he's still the #2 choice. Can you imagine what Reagan would have done if 9/11 had happened during his presidency?! He tried to declair Katsup a vegetable in school lunches, so can you just see him sitting at home in his bed, reaching for (what he THINKS is) the TV Remote Control, and picks up "THE BUTTON" and accidentally blows up the world instead?! What would he (or Bush for that matter) care anyway? As long as they get their paychecks for life after having served their term as President, all's FINE in the world! Herein lies the key to their incompetancy ~ apathy for anything that lies beyond their own noses!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA! Land of the Greed, and Home of the Betrayed!

Although I consider my self on the right, I will admit something. In the months leading up to the 2000 election, I was amazed by the lack of knowledge GeeDub had. I mean, he couldn't name the leaders of Russia and Pakistan... two countries with significant importance in the world. That, among other things, made me glad that I would not turn 18 that November. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Gore, and Bush wasn't helping. One of the saving graces... Colin Powell as Secretay of State. As long as the supporting cast was good... But if we had to pick a #2 behind our #1... Ill put GWB there, sure.

I've seen a couple of references to Jerry Ford's "Bad reputation."

I'm originally from Grand Rapids. He was a friend of the family. I don't know if he was the Mr. Ford who was my Sunday school teacher in first grade, but he might have been. We moved from one house to another about that time, but one sale closed early, another late, and we ended up spending a week with a friend of the family. What I remembered most of the experience was a basement full of political posters, fliers, etc. and a swimming pool. We moved to the new house and a school where everyone yelled "I like Ike!" during recess. Jerry Ford was the one famous graduate of my High School. In 1973, when my parents couldn't get a construction loan for a new home because of their age, (They were retired) Gerald Ford co-signed their mortgage.

In reality, he was appointed to Vice President because of his good reputation. I can't recall who was the "Washington Muckraker" at the time, but there was a political column which routinely exposed what was buried in the raw politics of Washington. The committee which was selected to appoint a successor to Spiro Agnew did not want to be surprised by a column outlining all the faults, history, etc. behind the candidate they nominated. They went directly to him, and asked to see what was in his files on a list of nominees. He refused to share what was in the files, but was willing to admit that he had no file on Jerry Ford, as he had never uncovered anything about him to expose.

When an original copy of the Declaration of Independence was on display at the Gerald Ford Museum last year, I took my family. I had been raised with the story that Jerry Ford never needed to raise campaign funds to get re-elected. At the museum, I found what was likely the actual story behind that legend. All political contributions received at his office, or by the Republican Party headquarters in Grand Rapids that were directed to his re-election were endorsed over to the Republican Party National Headquarters, which in turn paid any campaign expenses that he had during his entire political career, including his one campaign to be elected as President. Incidentally, an often stated goal of his was to finish his political career as President.


Jerry Ford's "bad rep" was because he pardoned Richard Nixon. At the time, there were people who were screaming for impeachment, a trial, some way of putting everyone involved behind bars. He had become President because of a Constitutional Amendment that called for an appointed Vice President to replace Spiro Agnew when he resigned under pressure, and introduced the nation to the legal phrase nolo contendere, "I won't admit I did anything wrong, but I'll accept the same punishment as if I had pled guilty." There was enough guilt to go around and everyone wanted to see it spread. I felt at the time that he made a pragmatic executive decision. He had a country to run, a world to interact with, Congress to deal with, and he had the power to say "Nixon left office in disgrace and that is punishment enough. Let's get on with it." The general public perception was that it was one more crooked deal cut by "Tricky Dick," and no one should be able to barter his way to becoming President of the United States.

An interesting side note to touring the Gerald Ford museum were the photos of Jerry Ford with Cabinet members and advisers to Richard Nixon who later became Cabinet members and advisers to both President's Bush. I can't drive for the next five months, but if I find any notes that I took that day, I'll post their names somewhere.

Jerry Ford remains to date, the single Republican candidate that I have knowingly voted for. (In Michigan, judges are nominated by the political parties, but appear as non-partisans on the ballot.) Occasionally, he stumbled when he walked. That provided fodder for comedians like Chevy Chase, but I never felt it should have reflected on his ability to govern. His golf game was also mocked, but to the best of my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone with a stray golf ball.

I think the "muckraker" you were trying to think of was Jack Anderson.

Hi Curmudgeon... Got a chuckle out of your avatar... that was cute.

Regarding Ford, can't say he was the best, nor the worst - essentially, I think he's "a good egg" & I appreciate your experiences with him and your viewpoint on that. There were/are far worse presidents than he, that's for sure, however, I don't think we ever really got to see him prove himself under pressure considering he never really faced such challenging issues as we encounter in today's world. It would be interesting to hear what each one of the last 10 presidents would have chosen to do had they been faced with these dilemmas.

Despite his political faults a man that I wish would have had a chance at a second term is Jimmy Carter. Sure he fouled up and I wouldnt have voted for him (if I was even alive) but Jimmy Carter IMO has been the most noble and brilliant (IQ is supposedly like 176..astronomical) person to ever be president. I feel bad putting him down there but he was an ineffective and weak president. What that shows you is that the best men are rarely the best politicians. I think its bizarre when any political historian would rank a mass murderer Andrew Jackson as a superior to a man like Jimmy Carter.

While Carter may be the brightest man ever to be president, I found that he did not know how to manage people. He micro-managed and did not let the people trained to do a job, actually do it. That was not bad luck, that was bad management.

As for the personal intelligence of Bush senior, a friend of mine that did several of his CIA briefings. He referred to them as "Dick and Jane sessions" because they had to dumb down the data to his level. The Shrub is not as bright as the Senior.

It's tempting to think of Dubya's mangled syntax, anti-intellectualism, poor speaking skills, and proclivity to be willingly manipulated by his elders and decide this guy is clueless.

But Gerald Ford strikes me as the most incompetent Chief Executive of my lifetime. He entered the White House under troubling circumstances and with a reservoir of good will. He squandered it. His most memorable accomplishments were to fall down a lot and give Chevy Chase a career and pardon the most morally bankrupt president this nation has ever had.

Jimmy Carter and George Bush41 are contenders for the crown because if an incumbent President can't get reelected that is incompetent.

It's too soon to hang that title on Gee Dubya. Anytime anyone wants to call him incompetent, just remember that in 2002, Bush barnstormed across the country and helped Republicans win control of both houses of Congress; something that had not happened in 50 years. That's hardly the sign of a incompetent dullard.

Who is the least competent President? G.W II But on the same hand he stands to come out the riches of all time . So his goal as president (and chenys corporate mined) has by far achieved more personal goals than any other. Maybe the question should read, Who are the least competent voters. Who out there didn't know he wanted a way in to alaska before he took office. Dick cheny for a vice president hellooooooooooooooooo , How hard do you have to be hit over the head with a big red and white WARNING sigh. Then it was to late and that sigh crashed down on our heads again with chenys great speech about how the oiland gas companies have been running to LEAN.

Is it? Or does it just reflect that a nation deserves its politicians?

America may have been reacting to 911, and we hadnt invaded Iraq yet. Many still had little idea what Bush had up his sleeve in the direction he would take the country. They wanted security above all.
Two years later has been a harsh reckonning.

I have to go with Bush Jr. However that is based on personal views.
Id have to give Bush and the Admin credit for being able to get over on Congress and the public to the levels of R. Nixon. To be truthful, incompetance is subjective. Bush has been fully competant in convincing Americans that secrecy and corruption in government is not only ok, but to be expected and sell the Neo-Con fake war, to accept loss of civil liberties and mainlining of religious fanatasizm in our lives and school systems with barely a peep. To recieve a blank check on Americas future. Virtually to have convinced Americans to forget about our own well being and internal needs in order to improve Iraq and bring freedom and democracy to the middle -east and pay for usless programs domestically. You have to credit him for buying off the public with a minimal (for most) tax rebate.

I have no doubt when we have to begin to pay back for all this failed grandiosity, the future will show Bush to be the most incompetant, hands down.

Ah, my dear Artemise. The only thing that surpasses your loathing for Dubya is my admiration for the intensity of your distaste.

You may be right that we allowed ourselves to be duped and distracted by Bush, but to an extent I think you make my case that he's not the total moron we've painted him as.

Id have to give Bush and the Admin credit for being able to get over on Congress and the public to the levels of R. Nixon. To be truthful, incompetance is subjective. Bush has been fully competant in convincing Americans that secrecy and corruption in government is not only ok, but to be expected and sell the Neo-Con fake war, to accept loss of civil liberties and mainlining of religious fanatasizm in our lives and school systems with barely a peep. To recieve a blank check on Americas future. Virtually to have convinced Americans to forget about our own well being and internal needs in order to improve Iraq and bring freedom and democracy to the middle -east and pay for usless programs domestically. You have to credit him for buying off the public with a minimal (for most) tax rebate.

Dumb as a rock or crazy as a fox? The debate rages on and since there's a pretty bad chance that we may get stuck with four more years of Gee Dubya, I think it's a bit premature to dub Dubya with the "least competent" label.

With his fondness for dragging the country into unwanted wars, I just hope there IS a future that will vindicate your opinion. It's kind of "iffy" with Bush and his gang in charge.

The answer to this question depends, as has already been pointed out, on the definition of "incompetent". If it has to do with intelligence, there is a small group that fits into that category and there is little doubt in my mind that the current president is part of that group. However, I train leaders for a living. And I know that being competent does not always have to do with style, intelligence, speaking ability, or other such skills. Ultimately, it can be defined only in very pragmatic terms: A competent person is one who is able to "get the job done".

What is the "job" of the president? That depends on the time period. For Ford, "the job" was to restore America's faith in itself, at a time when very few people "believed" in America any more. He did the job admirably. I don't call that incompetent. For Reagan, it was to make America strong and put an end to the tendency to think that big-spending liberalism was the wave of the future. He did that job admirably. Neither of them was a genius (I know quite a few geniuses personally, and know just what the term means--and what it doesn't mean). But they were both competent.

"The job" for the current president is to defend America against the attacks of radical Islamic terrorism. So far, the jury is still out, but he can hardly be judged as "incompetent", it seems to me. He is perhaps the one of the ten with the lowest IQ (for what little that actually means), but he has shown strong leadership at a time when that is what America needed most. He may not be as competent as he could be, but he certainly is not the most incompetent.

Ironically, my vote for the most incompetent goes to the one of the ten for whom I have the most admiration on a personal level: Jimmy Carter. Probably the most honest president in the history of our nation, and honesty counts for a lot to me. But "the job" at his time was to demonstrate American strength and resolve in the face of the continuing Cold War and against the growing threat (even back then) of radical Islam. He fumbled the ball totally on both of those issues. He had a terrible tendency to think that because he was nice, honest and dependable (and he was all of that), then others must be, too. That is way too naive. He let America be humiliated with the Iranian hostage crisis, and let Breshnev's Soviet Union thumb its nose at us in Afghanistan, wringing his hands and saying he couldn't believe Breshnev would lie to him.

That, in my opinion, is incompetency. He was totally incapable of doing the job that he ought to have done.

(And by this same measure, Eisenhower comes a very close second, since he is the one who let the Cold War get out of hand in the first place.)

hands down, bush jr.

At home, his policies have done nothing for the country, except allow for radical religious fanatics to infiltrate the government, which is now fueling Americas ban on liberty with the gay sex amendment, and of course is now trying to get into secular public school. Mainly he is allowing a sect in America to enforce their views of reality among everyone else that happens to live in the country. His tax cut idea is like communism, it looked good on paper. His touting of hydrogen fuel i fear is nothing more then a lie for elections, as if he had power to do any real change is energy infrastructure, plus environmentally speaking he is the worst president in that issue in some time.

Then there is the Iraq war, a unjustified war in the worlds eyes for the most part that really has no end in sight. One that is probably producing more terrorists from the Islamic community and slowly destroying what is left of this countries ruined economy. Most everything said by him and his cronies have turned out to be lies in time, and the control of information on this war to the public of America is something i label funny among other words. Who knows how many Americans his half brained scheme will kill, and in time if we cant afford it anymore we will withdraw and leave a Vietnam like effect and country behind, this will also add to a certain extremist groups fervor. with Mogadishu, some of Americas best soldiers, in terms of training and equipment failed the mission and had to resort to killing thousands of locals to escape. this is a much larger version of this, and we simply drench it with regular infantry soldiers, this in my opinion is failure of the army to prepare along the force initiative for modern day threats to Americas security. Yet, our president with full power made the decision to start this conflict that as of now is killing more Americans then during the war but is not called a war for some reason.

one last note for our awol patriot that only represents some Americans, i so hope you he will lose this next election, i would have morale for the rest of my tour.