Would you name one U.S. president you really appreciate?

[JayHawk]

Are you insane? You really are under the misconception that Afghanistan bankrupted the USSR?

Not the Missile race?
Not the Space race?
Not the race for dominance of the oceans?
Not the failure of soviet ability to market anything but weapons of war that were then proven to fail against western weapons of war over and over in small skirmishes?

But Afghanistan.....lol

[JB3]

The problem I have with Wilson is his belief that self determination was only for whites, while believing that non-whites were little more than savages than needed to be ruled by whites.

Not quite true. Contrary to the opinions of some, Wilson was not racist.

[JB3]

Gorbachev took far more risks and worked far harder to end dictatorship in his country and re-establish freedom in the USSR and eastern Europe than Reagan did, and more than Reagan could have even understood. Reagan was the man who smiled while history unfolded.

...which was only possible because Reagan's massive arms build up forced the USSR to bankrupt itself.

[bankside]

...which was only possible because Reagan's massive arms build up forced the USSR to bankrupt itself.

If I said Russia put the first satellite into orbit or was the first to send a spacecraft to the moon, you'd say "Which was only possible because America did X" which is an astonishingly predictable and tedious response from far too many Americans on any subject. What else can I say? It's a pathology or something.

"China built the great wall" ---> "Which was only possible using American bricks…" "France was first to take to the skies with hot air balloons." "Which was only possible because Americans were planning to eventually build airplanes."

Gorbachev's accomplishments stand on their own.

[JayHawk]

I'm insane? For stating the facts? No. I'm not. The war in Afghanistan was a major drain on the USSR at the wrong time. They had 100,000+ troops in Afghanistan... and this was a huge cost. Did I dismiss those other fucking issues? No. but it just goes to show most of it was self inflicted... not because of that asshole Reagan.

But there were more immediate causes for the collapse. In the middle 1980's about seventy percent of the industrial output of the Soviet Union was going to the military. Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB official who defected to Britain, asserted that at least one third of the total output was going to the military. British intelligence could not believe such a high figure but later Western intelligence sources estimated that it was at least fifty percent. One can only imagine what a severe shortages of industrial goods there were for the rest of the economy.

In the U.S. the Reagan Administration increased the budget for the military and presented the possibility that it would implement a Star Wars antiballistic missile system. To maintain a parity with the U.S. under those developments would have required an even larger share of industrial ouput going to the military. The planners and decision-makers had to face the fact that it was economically impossible for the Soviet Union to increase the share of its output going to the military. The Soviet authorities then ended the arms race and called off the Cold War. When the justification of an external threat was removed there was no reason for the Russian public to tolerate the totalitarian regime and the political system fell apart.

The budget increase for the military came at the expense of investment in the rest of the economy. Nikolai Leonov, a general in the KGB, described the result as follows:

First there was a visible decline in the rate of growth, then its complete stagnation. There was a drawnout, deepening and almost insurmountable crisis in agriculture. It was a frightening and truly terrifying sign of crisis. It was these factors that were crucial in the transition to perestroika.
The Reagan Administration justifiably gets credit for destroying the Evil Empire, but the irony of it is that the successful strategy arose as a result of a blunder rather than rational decision. David Stockman tells us that the dramatic increase in the defense budget arose as a result of a mistake. David Stockman was the head of the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB). The OMB practice in putting together a budget was first to make forecasts of the budget figures assuming no change in price levels; i.e., no inflation. An estimate was made of the rate of price increase and the constant price projections would be multiplied by an appropriate factor for inflation. Stockman says that in one year the inflation-adjusted figure for the Defense Department budget was mistakenly reported as the constant price figure. The mistaken figures were released before the mistake was caught. When OMB discovered the mistake the Reagan Administration tried to tell the Pentagon that a correction would have to be made. The Pentagon people said, in effect, "No way! If you adjust that published figure we will tell people that you are cutting the Defense budget."

The political fallout would have been too great so the Reagan Administration sanctioned the accceptance of the published figure and made a second inflation adjustment. This was why there was such a big increase in the Defense budget.

That is from a faculty paper at San Jose State. I will be more than happy to read any 'facts' from credible scholarly sources that you would like to present to consider the war

Wait are you an Islamist? Because the only people on earth who believe they made the USSR fall are apparently you and the Islamist....

The Islamists who fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden, for example, was asserting the credit for "the dissolution of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan

Above I highlighted in red the morsel that Reagan haters can grasp onto to try and deny the fact that he was responsible. Any one person who would fail to see the truth because they would rather grasp onto hate of another is insane in my humble opinion. I think that just the same of those who hate Obama and those who dismiss history because they have a fervent need to hate Reagan. Which is all that more amusing to come from someone barely out of the womb when Reagan actually lead this nation. Are there plenty of things to hate Reagan for? You fucking betcha but not his accomplishments.

[JayHawk]

Oh one last thing before you grab onto it for dear life... at the end of the link i provided the insinuation is made that the oil prices were dropped and therefore made the purchase of grains using western loans and all of that was a master plan between the CIA and the Saudi's to punish the USSR for invading Afghanistan. However the entire reason that is even an issue is because of the primary military focus of their economy which was orchestrated whether wittingly or not at the hands of the Reagan Admin and earlier admins. Reagan drive the nail as it were.

[bankside]

Two things.

If I said Russia put the first satellite into orbit or was the first to send a spacecraft to the moon, you'd say "Which was only possible because America did X" which is an astonishingly predictable and tedious response from far too many Americans on any subject. What else can I say? It's a pathology or something.

"China built the great wall" ---> "Which was only possible using American bricks…" "France was first to take to the skies with hot air balloons." "Which was only possible because Americans were planning to eventually build airplanes."

Gorbachev's accomplishments stand on their own.

First, I have been called out for this post in a comment, which to my mind was self-evidently hyperbole. I will assume the insinuation that I "hate America" is also hyperbole. Either way, it's not true. I was responding to the idea that Reagan is responsible for something that was "solely possible" because of his own efforts. Nonsense. If it could be said of anyone, Gorbachev is solely responsible through his own decision-making and strategic mastery for giving the Soviet Union a fresh start under open skies. He was not dragged kicking and screaming into modernity like Imperial Japan. He thought it was a good idea. He thought there were good innovations worth bringing to the Soviet Union with full determination and enthusiasm. And he supported reform from within.

He was a partner in dialogue, not (as in the Reagan-idolizing mythology) some unhappy loser who discovered his plans for Dr.Evil-esque world domination had been thwarted by the Smiling President™. His goodwill toward his own country and his sense of responsibility to improve not just that country but to put geopolitical stability and peace on a more solid footing, was evident while he was in office, and even clearer since.

Second, I am about to change my mind due to the discussion on here. Don't spill your drinks; I'm serious:

I think it is clear that Reagan was entering his dotage even then. But if you consider "Reagan the Government" vs. "Reagan the Man," then I concede that "Reagan" can take credit for being a helpful partner in the dialogues that ended the cold war, and for fostering and developing Russia's inherent capacity for self-improvement. It clearly was a goal of US foreign policy to bring about change in the Soviet Union, and the Reagan Administration was there when it happened, and discharged themselves skillfully in support of their objective. So credit where credit is due.

But the point remains: it was also an objective of previous US administrations; fruitlessly so. What was different is now there was a Gorbachev.

[JayHawk]

Bankside first let me say I really think whoever insulted you and whined about a very well made point is obviously not a contributor to anything in this forum worth talking about. I have received such hate mail for having an alternative opinion so i can just guess the cast of characters who did such a thing.

Second Gorbachev was absolutely the right leader ta the right time. However it wasn't Gorby who made it so the main ruling class of the USSR had a militaristic lean and were pushing for up to 70% economic spending on the military alone. That mindset was the culmination of multiple 'races' as it were with the US economy. And if you look at the deficit spending in the Reagan years it is obvious WHY all of that came to a boiling head in Reagan's term. I have to give an entire regime the credit for the office they head because I am likely to give the head the blame when things go wrong.

[Kulindahr]

Second Gorbachev was absolutely the right leader ta the right time. However it wasn't Gorby who made it so the main ruling class of the USSR had a militaristic lean and were pushing for up to 70% economic spending on the military alone. That mindset was the culmination of multiple 'races' as it were with the US economy. And if you look at the deficit spending in the Reagan years it is obvious WHY all of that came to a boiling head in Reagan's term. I have to give an entire regime the credit for the office they head because I am likely to give the head the blame when things go wrong.

The "poker game": they tried to call, but ended up folding.

[xbuzzerx]

No; Japan was dragged kicking and screaming into modern times by the US. Russia was a different matter.

If you're talking about the warships showing up in Tokyo Harbor to demand Japan end its period of isolation, yes. If you're talking about Japan's mostly self-directed entry into modernization, through which it built virtually a first class military apparatus and such during and after WWII, no, they were not dragged kicking and screaming. These weren't religious fundamentalists insisting technology and advancement would destroy their country, not after the Meiji Restoration anyway--- and even before that, it was really more that Japan didn't want foreign influences, not that it didn't want technology. But Japan had historically always had to carefully balance the trade of technology with the unwanted foreign influences-- for much of its history, trade with the west was synonymous with letting Christianity in, which did nothing for the Japanese but cause internal sectary fighting and the ever present fear that one of the regional warlords who embraced Christianity would get the support of Spanish conquistadors (or, later, a western colonial power) to help them take over. So they were way more paranoid about that than about "modernization."

Sony was started by a guy who went through the firebombed wreck of Tokyo after the surrender collecting damaged radios and repairing them. These weren't a people who had to be "forced" to embrace the modern world.

Two things.


First, I have been called out for this post in a comment, which to my mind was self-evidently hyperbole. I will assume the insinuation that I "hate America" is also hyperbole. Either way, it's not true. I was responding to the idea that Reagan is responsible for something that was "solely possible" because of his own efforts. Nonsense. If it could be said of anyone, Gorbachev is solely responsible through his own decision-making and strategic mastery for giving the Soviet Union a fresh start under open skies. He was not dragged kicking and screaming into modernity like Imperial Japan. He thought it was a good idea. He thought there were good innovations worth bringing to the Soviet Union with full determination and enthusiasm. And he supported reform from within.

He was a partner in dialogue, not (as in the Reagan-idolizing mythology) some unhappy loser who discovered his plans for Dr.Evil-esque world domination had been thwarted by the Smiling President™. His goodwill toward his own country and his sense of responsibility to improve not just that country but to put geopolitical stability and peace on a more solid footing, was evident while he was in office, and even clearer since.

Second, I am about to change my mind due to the discussion on here. Don't spill your drinks; I'm serious:

I think it is clear that Reagan was entering his dotage even then. But if you consider "Reagan the Government" vs. "Reagan the Man," then I concede that "Reagan" can take credit for being a helpful partner in the dialogues that ended the cold war, and for fostering and developing Russia's inherent capacity for self-improvement. It clearly was a goal of US foreign policy to bring about change in the Soviet Union, and the Reagan Administration was there when it happened, and discharged themselves skillfully in support of their objective. So credit where credit is due.

But the point remains: it was also an objective of previous US administrations; fruitlessly so. What was different is now there was a Gorbachev.

I don't think you sound like an American hater; I said much the same thing on the previous page. Americans tend to view history in a mirror bubble and interpret most things as people reacting to us rather than having any agency of their own. Whenever any country or group or foreign entity of any kind has any sort of beef with us an enormous amount of Americans rather than hitting google or wikipedia to learn a little bit about the history are quite satisfied to simply something like "well they just hate us/are jealous of us/hate our freedoms." Regardless of the context in question.

[TX-Beau]

That mindset is considered a badge of honor on the right. Jingoism and GOD!! YEE-HAW

[JayHawk]

Actually this is quite divergent from the thread but germane to Japan's rise and demise.

Japan has always been a nation dominated by the need to get resources elsewhere. During the imperial years for the UK and Americas manifest destiny Japan saw western democracies spreading their wings to gobble up natural resources. They decided they must do the same and not unlike the west who convinced themselves they were conquering people to bring them from savagery to civilization and religious salavation, the Japanese felt the Chinese and peoples of southeast asia were a savage people who could benefit form the leadership of Japan while Japan benefited from the ample resources available.

The west denounced any advance by Japan as illegal and fought them on every turn. Japanese people interpreted this as racism where white men where allowed dominion but the yellow man was not. That is the main reason the Japanese attacked the US and brought us into the war. We were at the forefront of sanctioning Japan for their actions in China and Southeast Asia... remember that war began in 1937 and then joined WWII not the other way around....

[xbuzzerx]

That mindset is considered a badge of honor on the right. Jingoism and GOD!! YEE-HAW

lol yeah. I heard this thing for YEARS after the Iraq War had started, well after mainstream public opinion had turned negative on the war, from right-wingers that to me completely sums up the "mirror bubble" America-centric mindset: people who argued that Saddam really did have all those WMD's and that satellites saw him shipping something in cargo trucks across the border to Syria just before the invasion. I'm not sure if this originally came from Rush Limbaugh or where, but people really seriously argued this.

This completely embodies the bubble mindset because it presumes Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq didn't have his own life, power, problems or position to worry about, he didn't have a country he lived in and ruled for x years to think about, and none of that was important enough to use these purported weapons he had to fight an invasion of Iraq: by far the more important thing to him was to "embarrass America" even if he lost his power and died over it.

That type of stripping away of any rational reasoning power or self-interest from other people in the world in favor of assuming everything they do is a direct reaction to us (we're obviously more important) is the sort of mindset I mean.

Actually this is quite divergent from the thread but germane to Japan's rise and demise.

Japan has always been a nation dominated by the need to get resources elsewhere. During the imperial years for the UK and Americas manifest destiny Japan saw western democracies spreading their wings to gobble up natural resources. They decided they must do the same and not unlike the west who convinced themselves they were conquering people to bring them from savagery to civilization and religious salavation, the Japanese felt the Chinese and peoples of southeast asia were a savage people who could benefit form the leadership of Japan while Japan benefited from the ample resources available.

The west denounced any advance by Japan as illegal and fought them on every turn. Japanese people interpreted this as racism where white men where allowed dominion but the yellow man was not. That is the main reason the Japanese attacked the US and brought us into the war. We were at the forefront of sanctioning Japan for their actions in China and Southeast Asia... remember that war began in 1937 and then joined WWII not the other way around....

Yes and Japan in its silly little ... I forget what it was called, Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or whatever, issued propaganda that (correctly) pointed out that western frowning on their colonialist actions was hypocritical, that institutionalized second class citizenship/discrimination was utterly common to European colonialism and even to how the U.S. treated its own internal colonized groups like Native Americans and blacks, and that a whole slew of the western powers had spent the last century raping China and addicting it to opium to create a favorable trade deficit.

Yes what Japan was doing was aggressive and bad. It was also precisely the same pattern Europe had been doing to the rest of the world for the last 500 years and Japan was completlely correct to point out that their outrage over it was hypocritical. Japan had modernized into an aggressive, belligerent regime precisely because it had determined not to be colonized the way it had seen done to China over the last century.

You can say "that was in the past" but you can't say that the west doing really nasty things overseas wasn't a major causal factor.

[JayHawk]

If you look at the behavior of the US forces in the Philippines then you would be positive we were the Taliban of the early 1900's ...

"The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."

“The town of Titatia [sic] was surrendered to us a few days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger

[maxpowr9]

^ That is the EXACT reason why the Pacific theatre is almost never discussed in USH pertaining to WWII. We like to sweep under the rug our atrocities. The Battle of Luzon in the Philippines is arguably the bloodiest battle in WWII with over a quarter million causalities on both sides [most of them on Japan's side but the Allied side saw quite a bit too] yet you will hear the glory of D-Day and never of "S-Day".

[Zingerific]

To return to the topic... using appreciate as the operative term, I have to say Teddy Roosevelt. He's the only President to extole the virtues of carrying a big stick.

[JB3]

If I said Russia put the first satellite into orbit or was the first to send a spacecraft to the moon, you'd say "Which was only possible because America did X" which is an astonishingly predictable and tedious response from far too many Americans on any subject. What else can I say? It's a pathology or something.

"China built the great wall" ---> "Which was only possible using American bricks…" "France was first to take to the skies with hot air balloons." "Which was only possible because Americans were planning to eventually build airplanes."

Gorbachev's accomplishments stand on their own.

Except in this case its true. The reason the USSR collapsed and Gorbachev was given the opportunity was because they were pushed to the financial brink by the arms build-up. Anyone that denies that is denying history.

Also note that I didn't attribute their fall solely to Reagan. His arms build-up may have provided the impetus for Russian spending, but the Russians did it to themselves. There IS a clear cause and effect, but it certainly wasn't some grand plan by the US to force a Russian economic collapse. (happy accidents, as they say)

[csb999]

would disagree strongly with several comments here . Truman was I think the worst , strongly and aggressively disliked by almost everyone including his own wife and FDR and Churchill . Gallup poll of presidential popularity he has been the single most unpopular ever , even lower than Nixon during his impeachment . His first federal politics was after 50 years of age when fourth choice he was sent to the Senate by the Prendergast "machine" which ran Missouri then . He was known as "the man from Prendergast " and had difficulties at first because many Congressional secretaries refused to respond to his telephone calls . He founded the CIA and the NSA himself , and the state of Israel ( even though his entire cabinet rejected it and the Foreign Civil service opposed it, saying it would "destabilize the region" ) . Gen . Douglas MacArthur refused to salute him properly and was later fired by Truman in one of his most unpopular actions . Wikipedia says there were considerable problems of corruption in his government whatever that means .When the train union went on strike he threatened to draft them all into the army . When his elderly mother ( who he was always close to ) came to the White House she refused to stay in the Lincoln room bcause the south still hated that northerner . I could go on .

[csb999]

coincidence rather , Truman was vice-president for ? three months when FDR died so both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were at his order . The only one in history .

[Chrizze]

Off topic - There has been quite thorough discussions,about arms race,and collapse of soviet union.Basically,soviet union collapsed,because they did not realised a thing,that Chinese had: - capitalist-esque system will work without freedom."Do what you want,but we shall rule",Chinese had demonstrated,that this will work,because masses really don't give a shit,who will rule,as far as they have roof upon their heads,work to do,food on the table,and law and order to ensure,that you can go out,without getting robbed in the next corner.- End of Off topic.My Russian-born,and Soviet-era-lived friends have told me,that these things are what people will yearn back for,in demonstrations you may have seen,when people shout,that soviet,or even stalin's era was better.Only those things,nothing else.

[chance1]

To return to the topic... using appreciate as the operative term, I have to say Teddy Roosevelt. He's the only President to extole the virtues of carrying a big stick.

Indeed

It is about American presidents

Not Japan and the decision to drop the bomb
Or the collapse of the Soviet Union
Or particular battles in WWII
Although I love all that stuff
Perhaps there should be a thread or threads about world history

The presidency is about leadership and making hard decisions

It's hard for me to compare Obama bush Clinton etc to historical presidents

As I've lived these in these times

Vs Woodrow fucking Wilson . Whom I've read a bit about

So much more bullshit now

It's like comparing athletes from other eras

But it is fun

Not quite as much

[NYClover54]

Reagan by far. Next would be Lincoln, Washington, and I'll give a democrat a shot, Truman. Worst president, Carter. The only thing that's saving Obama from being up there was that he gave the go ahead to kill Osama.

[xbuzzerx]

Reagan by far. Next would be Lincoln, Washington, and I'll give a democrat a shot, Truman. Worst president, Carter. The only thing that's saving Obama from being up there was that he gave the go ahead to kill Osama.

I have to ask.... how is that something someone considers a major negative on his record?

[JayHawk]

would disagree strongly with several comments here . Truman was I think the worst , strongly and aggressively disliked by almost everyone including his own wife and FDR and Churchill . Gallup poll of presidential popularity he has been the single most unpopular ever , even lower than Nixon during his impeachment . His first federal politics was after 50 years of age when fourth choice he was sent to the Senate by the Prendergast "machine" which ran Missouri then . He was known as "the man from Prendergast " and had difficulties at first because many Congressional secretaries refused to respond to his telephone calls . He founded the CIA and the NSA himself , and the state of Israel ( even though his entire cabinet rejected it and the Foreign Civil service opposed it, saying it would "destabilize the region" ) . Gen . Douglas MacArthur refused to salute him properly and was later fired by Truman in one of his most unpopular actions . Wikipedia says there were considerable problems of corruption in his government whatever that means .When the train union went on strike he threatened to draft them all into the army . When his elderly mother ( who he was always close to ) came to the White House she refused to stay in the Lincoln room bcause the south still hated that northerner . I could go on .

coincidence rather , Truman was vice-president for ? three months when FDR died so both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were at his order . The only one in history .

Oddl;y this is who a poster appreciates thread and not who can you denigrate or even who you can prove is bad thread.... I dont know if you posted earlier and cant be arsed to go look BUT who do you like as President is the question.

[Jack Springer]

. . . Truman ....When his elderly mother ( who he was always close to ) came to the White House she refused to stay in the Lincoln room bcause the south still hated that northerner . I could go on .

Bad move on her part but it's understandable. Truman's mother grew up in probably the most divisive area before, during, and after the Civil War. Her family home and farm were destroyed by Union soldiers and Jayhawkers during Order No. 11 of the Civil War. The hateful Kansans and Union soldiers destroyed 3 counties in western Missouri burning everything to the ground, raping and killing, stealing what they could. I believe Lincoln authorized the order but I've also read that he didn't approve of the extreme actions.

Nothing like Order No. 11 has ever happened at any other time during the history of the USA.

It's also good to point out that Truman integrated the US Military -- hardly something that a racist would do.

[maxpowr9]

I don't understand the vitriol Carter gets. At least what my junior year AP USH taught us to consider was look at the hand each previous President dealt to the next and how the next one played their cards. Carter was dealt quite a shitty hand from Nixon-Ford and did an acceptable job with it. Carter sucked at playing international relations but technocrats are not suave in that regard anyways.

[chance1]

I don't understand the vitriol Carter gets. At least what my junior year AP USH taught us to consider was look at the hand each previous President dealt to the next and how the next one played their cards. Carter was dealt quite a shitty hand from Nixon-Ford and did an acceptable job with it. Carter sucked at playing international relations but technocrats are not suave in that regard anyways.

he is universally regarded as a lame pres.

and of the living ex's he's universally despised

the others do things together - respect each other - like each other

carter is never part of the mix

his willingness to act against us interests - meeting with dictators, etc.

is part of - a big part

[Jack Springer]

I don't understand the vitriol Carter gets. At least what my junior year AP USH taught us to consider was look at the hand each previous President dealt to the next and how the next one played their cards. Carter was dealt quite a shitty hand from Nixon-Ford and did an acceptable job with it. Carter sucked at playing international relations but technocrats are not suave in that regard anyways.

Carter micro-managed and did not look at the big picture - he was too involved with the little stuff. He allowed circumstances to dictate how he would govern instead of being a leader.


Stories he told about rabid rabbits and lust made him look unpresidential. He became a self-imposed hostage in the White House during the Iran Hostage Crisis. The world looked looked at him as a weak US President.

If leaders are handled lemons, they make lemonade. When people like Carter and Obama are handed lemons ... they just complain that they didn't get lemonade.

[xbuzzerx]

Sigh can we stop with the fortune cookie crap. If you're going to say something so extreme at least back it up with SOMETHING.

[chance1]

I don't understand the vitriol Carter gets. At least what my junior year AP USH taught us to consider was look at the hand each previous President dealt to the next and how the next one played their cards. Carter was dealt quite a shitty hand from Nixon-Ford and did an acceptable job with it. Carter sucked at playing international relations but technocrats are not suave in that regard anyways.

here's an article on why jimmy c is not so well liked - actually disliked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ds-script.html

[JayHawk]

It would seem all encompassing statements are both ignorant and inaccurate.

Carter, who left the White House in 1981 with a 34 percent approval rating in a Gallup survey, has enjoyed greater public approval in his post-presidency years. Gallup surveys gave him a 45 percent approval rating in 1994, 69 percent in 1999, and 52 percent in 2011. In 1990, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found him to be as popular as Ronald Reagan, the man who trounced him in 1980. A 2009 C-SPAN survey of historians placed Carter 25th of 42 former presidents (counting Grover Cleveland only once) in terms of leadership qualities -- not exactly FDR and Lincoln territory, but not Buchanan and Harding, either.

[desertboi]

For me, it's Reagan. He was a brilliant speaker and I think a genuine, decent man. I'm also a fan of JFK, Jefferson, and Jackson.

[csb999]

Genuinely amazed Reagan can be mentioned here at all without abject horror . He was without a doubt the most anti-gay of probably all presidents ever , the single worst , and marked the point that the Born-again Christians comandeered the Republican Party . Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority . Anita Bryant , Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve .