February 16, 2009 10:22 AM
Is Lincoln the best president in U.S. history? And is W 36th?
Less than a week after the celebration of the 200th anniversary of his birth, Abraham Lincoln has been designated the nation's best president by a group of historians.
Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.
In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.
In C-SPAN's only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.
This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.
"Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.
After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.
Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.
EARLIER:
If Abraham Lincoln were to weigh in on today's social issues, what would his positions be: on immigration, civil rights, taxation, religion? Would he find a home in the Republican party of today?
Historian Michael Lind examines Lincoln in today's context in this piece in Salon. Lind is the Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of "What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President."
Would Lincoln join the fiscal conservatives who fret over the size of the national debt? Largely because of the Civil War, the federal budget grew from $63 million in 1860 to $1.2 billion in 1865. Following his assassination, his widow, Mary, explained that Lincoln had wanted to take a trip to Europe, after leaving office: "After his return from Europe, he intended to cross the Rocky Mountains and go to California, where the soldiers were to be digging out gold to pay the national debt." I don't think that today's deficit hawks would be amused by Lincoln's joke.Would Lincoln join today's Republicans in calling for more tax cuts as the answer to every problem? President Lincoln signed the bills creating the IRS and the first U.S. income tax.
Historian Henry Louis Gates examined the myths and truths of Lincoln in Looking For Lincoln, which aired last night on PBS. You can watch the two-hour show here.
How do you view Lincoln? Did his determination to preserve the Union overshadow some of his faults?
February 12, 2009
10:48 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
LINCOLN would suspend habeas corpus again--and throw the SOB trouble-makers into jail...before he has them executed.
February 12, 2009
11:24 AM
JMH writes:
The GOP and Lincoln were the "liberals" in those days... Remember, the South was staunchly Democratic until the middle of this 20th century.
Lincoln would have been a Democrat today, and probably a pretty liberal one.
Racism is a big part of the GOP today, though PUBLICALLY they deny it (...but that fact still remains that over 95% of blacks would NEVER vote Republican today), the GOP's base is firmly entrenched in the Old South and is predominatly old, white and un-progressive in everyway... (it seems that most of these "conservatives" would love to turn the clock back to the 19th century)
Pretty safe to say, Lincoln would throw up if he has seen what the party he helped create had become!
February 12, 2009
12:03 PM
Badger writes:
I hate these questions. Unless you plan a seance, you have no idea what the dead would think. Like the people who keep asking what the "Original Intent" of the Founding Fathers would be on our questions of the day.
February 12, 2009
12:19 PM
RTL reader writes:
Does anyone read JMH's garbage anymore?
Quite a whack job.
February 12, 2009
12:20 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
RASMUSSEN: AMERICA HEADED IN WRONG DIRECTION
Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters say the nation is moving in the right direction, while 66% say it is heading down the wrong track, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
BOTTOM LINE: Get Obama a compass
February 12, 2009
12:26 PM
Matt writes:
I just want to post this again so people can witness the ignorance and race baiting tactics comeing from the hard left of the Democratic Party. It's good enough to let them speak for themselves.
"Racism is a big part of the GOP today, though PUBLICALLY they deny it (...but that fact still remains that over 95% of blacks would NEVER vote Republican today), the GOP's base is firmly entrenched in the Old South and is predominatly old, white and un-progressive in everyway... (it seems that most of these "conservatives" would love to turn the clock back to the 19th century)"
-Resident malcontent, JMH.
February 12, 2009
12:27 PM
history buff writes:
Lincoln belonged to the Whig party for most of his life. The Whigs advocated internal improvements -- building of canals, roads, bridges. Under Lincoln, the railroads were expanded from coast to coast. Also, the Homestead Act was passed during Lincoln's administration, which enabled a faster settlement of the west. Part of the Homestead Act set aside land for public schools.
The Republican Party was still in its nascent stage when Lincoln was president. The party changed after the Grant administration. Grant intended on enforcing Reconstruction. He wanted to protect the rights of former slaves to vote and own property, and to participate in our democracy. The deal that was struck to resolve the 1876 election ended Reconstruction. Florida's electoral votes went to Hayes, who did not win the popular vote. Florida was as corrupt in 1876 as it is today.
The gilded age that followed is the golden age for Republicans. The policies pursued by Reagan and the Bushes spring from that era with its great swings in the business cycles from rampant growth to devastating financial panics. The 20th Century was merely an off road adventure that needs to be corrected.
February 12, 2009
1:45 PM
Shaggy writes:
He would say there is a Socialist war on Capitalism.
He would be right.
He would think it wasn't possible for someone to be as far left as Barry and still live in America let alone be voted into public office.
February 12, 2009
2:40 PM
Michael writes:
JMH assumes that blacks do not vote for the GOP because of some flaw or fault of the GOP. It never occurs to him that maybe the flaw lies with those doing the choosing. Is it a coincidence that many prominent, well edcuated, and swell spoken blacks (no ebonics!!!) are conservatives (Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Clarence Page, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, & Michael Steele) and Republicans and many of the liberal blacks are race baiters and charlatans, (Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Mckenny, Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin, and the corrupt mayors of Detroit and many other major cities across this country? Why do so many blacks that achieve a higher education and embrace the English language choose the GOP?
February 12, 2009
2:41 PM
Truth writes:
If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be scratching and clawing at the lid of his casket.
February 12, 2009
2:43 PM
Michael writes:
JMH assumes that blacks do not vote for the GOP because of some flaw or fault of the GOP. It never occurs to him that maybe the flaw lies with those doing the choosing. Is it a coincidence that many prominent, well edcuated, and well spoken blacks (no ebonics!!!) are conservatives (Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Clarence Page, Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, & Michael Steele) and Republicans and many of the liberal blacks are race baiters and charlatans, (Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Mckenny, Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin, and the corrupt mayors of Detroit and many other major cities across this country? Why do so many blacks that achieve a higher education and embrace the English language choose the GOP?
February 12, 2009
3:12 PM
Tbone writes:
Ahhh, I see Sasquach is up to his usual douchebaggery.
He fails to mention that the right track/wrong track numbers are UP since Obama's election.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
Funny sas, I didn't see you posting about those numbers were in single digits during bush's tenure.
Why is that, sas? Because you're an asshat, that's why.
February 12, 2009
3:15 PM
JMH writes:
Hate to break it to you Michael, but you just named almost ALL of the blacks in the GOP today! You can almost count all the African Americans holding office in the GOP today on one hand!
Kinda ironic that you try to say there is no racism in the GOP and then you rant about low education level of apparently more than 90% of black Americans and "ebonics"... Thanks for proving my point dipsh*t!
That's right Michael, the flaw isn't with the GOP it is with the vast majority of African Americans (about 95%) in this country - (roll of the eyes)... Do you guys REALLY believe the nonsense that comes out of your mouth?
Sorry the truth hurts guys, but most Americans can see the disgrace that the NeoCon movement has made of the GOP these last 2 decades... especially "minorities" in this country! But please keep thinking everything is just fine with the GOP today and don't learn from your mistakes... it will keep your party in the minority for decades!
February 12, 2009
4:02 PM
am 760 writes:
JMH, nice shot between the eyes. Down goes frazier, down goes frazier.
These idiots just can't deal with the truth. I truely believe there is some kind of psychological problem with them, their brains are wired differently so they can't accept truth and facts.
February 12, 2009
4:34 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
DJIA DOWN 2000 SINCE ELECTION:
DJIA plunges 2000 since election--down about 80% on an annualized basis in a matter of weeks.
What do global financial markets know that the Obama pimps don't know?
February 12, 2009
4:46 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
ARE YOU BETTER TODAY THAN WHEN OBAMA WAS ELECTED?
You might feel better but you are a shit-load poorer!
February 12, 2009
5:02 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
SO HOW MUCH CHANGE AND HOPE WILL $13 PER WEEK AND $8 PER WEEK BUY YOU IN 2009 AND 2010?
Two ounces of hovel-ready bullshit and you libs are in financial heaven. You socialists sold yourselves very cheap, very cheap.
February 12, 2009
5:32 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
"CREATE" OR "PRESERVE" 3.5 MILLON JOBS--JUST CUT FORM 4 MIL ONLY YESTERDAY!
"PRESERVE"? PRESERVE?''?? can we drop the "preserve" BS right now or just cut the number from 3.5 MIL to 0.0mil jobs?
What the hell is that "preserve" BS--empty suit-economics? Affirmative action arithmetic?
February 12, 2009
5:42 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
Take a close look at Abe's left hand above. See it? He's giving Obama a THUMBS DOWN!
Abe sees right through Obama's shovel-ready bullshit. He ain't buyin' it.
February 12, 2009
6:27 PM
John writes:
Licoln would rescue the economy
with this stimulus plan
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/photos/stylus/62691-Geico-Kash.jpg
February 12, 2009
7:14 PM
RegLib writes:
Truth,
"If Lincoln were alive today, he'd be scratching and clawing at the lid of his casket."
A tip of the stovepipe hat to you. That's hilarious!
February 12, 2009
8:56 PM
michael.tolmachoff writes:
All I wish to say, for those that are anti-Lincoln, look inward. He as a Republican did more for any race than any party.
Your brother in Feedom
February 12, 2009
9:29 PM
history buff writes:
Did anyone see the President's speech at the Springfield Lincoln dinner? I'm glad we have a contender as President.
February 12, 2009
9:46 PM
thank god and greyhound, u're gone writes:
Alas! After 16 consecutive years of felonious NAM Oval Office occuptation, we are all FREE. Gone are those dope smokers, brush cutter, perverted and warped cigar-curing processes, commie-siders, bottom feeders, Benedict Arnolds, and Iraq-NAM war criminal. I'm sending BHO my old trusty Cold War gas mask (Mark V Mod. 2)so he can survive his first 100 days (GOP sulfur).
February 13, 2009
6:09 AM
ditto writes:
“If Abraham Lincoln were to weigh in on today's social issues, what would his positions be:” on abortion, welfare, punishing achievement, over regulation? Could Lincoln be a Democrat today? NO. A Pro-Life stand would throw Lincoln out of the Democratic party faster then any other position.
For those who are trying to compare a liberal during Lincolns time to a liberal now are reaching. Besides, I thought you liberals of today were now progressives. So what difference does it make.
I don’t remember seeing articles like this for Clinton or Bush. These type of articles are to give the most radical and inexperienced person ever to hold the office of President cover.
February 13, 2009
7:57 AM
Truth writes:
Looks like one sector of our economy that will NEVER die as long as 40Ounces and Sascrotch are here is booze. Those two drink more than any human should and their posts show it.
Cheers, ladies!
February 13, 2009
8:55 AM
Jim writes:
Licoln tried to bring in all parties and serve on his cabinet. Its not working for BO. Pubs are not interested and are out of touch with most americans.
Obama should not copy Lincoln. Its a different time and place. Lincoln would not be able to work with pubs if he was president in the same situation as Obama.
Although his attempts to reach out is admirable. Its not going to work. Just like McCain used to say hes the best at reaching across the aisle to get things done. We've seen just the opposite.
Its time to kick that party to the curb. People want things done differently. More pubs will lose seats.
February 13, 2009
9:09 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
LINCOLN WOULDN'T PASS LEGISLATION THAT NOBODY HAS TIME TO READ:
Democratic Senator Predicts None of HisColleagues 'Will Have the Chance' to Read Final Stimulus Bill Before Vote
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.)(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
If these people didn't have time to read it, then how can the clueless clowns who post here support it?
February 13, 2009
9:13 AM
lincoln is past time to look forward. writes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/22/new_contract_three/index.html
great article for a new direction needed.
No more "wars of choice"
If the Democrats will stop trying to out-hawk the Republicans, the Obama administration can begin rebuilding America's economy and military -- and international image.
"The Clinton and Bush administrations squandered a historic opportunity, by treating post-Soviet Russia and China as threats to American primacy rather than integrating them into a great-power security system. The U.S. humiliated Russia by bombing its ally Serbia, expanding NATO to its borders, and insisting on installing missile defenses in eastern Europe, while refusing to provide any path by which Russia could ever join NATO"
To that end, Obama should repudiate the failed strategy, pursued by the Clinton as well as Bush administrations, of seeking to establish American hegemony by keeping other great powers -- China and Russia in particular -- as humiliated, weak and isolated as possible. It is not enough to change the rhetoric and talk about multilateralism rather than unilateralism. Neither is it sufficient to engage in paternalistic language about "integrating" rising powers into a global system in which the U.S. continues to set the rules and grades the participants. Nor is the answer a "new Atlanticism," with a Euro-American axis as the center of world politics, and NATO rather than the U.S. as globo-cop. The era when the West policed the rest is over.
A new American liberal internationalism means genuine power-sharing in international security and international economic institutions, with China, Russia and India as well as the major states of the Muslim world, Latin America and Africa. A neo-Rooseveltian concert-of-power strategy does not depend on reforming the anachronistic U.N. Security Council. The recently organized G-20 could serve as an informal replacement for the Security Council, with its outmoded membership limited to the victors of World War II."
theres more.
"
February 13, 2009
9:23 AM
Bush writes:
"If these people didn't have time to read it, then how can the clueless clowns who post here support it?"
Well ya see thats why we elect people to congress in the first place. to do the hard work and do things for our own interests.lolol
Now both parties say stimulis is drastically needed. Both parties. But only you clowns on the right don't have any counter proposals and if you add anything to the bill, you vote against it anyways. lololo
besides I read comic books.
February 13, 2009
10:46 AM
freemarketworks writes:
The blatant attempt by Obama and the left to paint Republicans as racist and tyrannical is sickening; especially, as they attempt to align themselves with Lincoln. In truth, Lincoln had the one trait that all great American Presidents had; that’s an undying devotion to the concept that all humans are created equal and should not be impeded in their quest for liberty and freedom.
Lincoln’s belief in self determined destiny is what drove him to win the civil war and bring about the 13th amendment. Would a nanniest Democrat party be able to accomplish the same feat? I highly doubt it. First, Democrats believe that government is the solution to all of the problems that arise in society. Conversely, Lincoln and the Republicans believe that the government is a tool to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals to create solutions for their own problems. Second, Democrats, particularly the elite left, hold the belief that people are too ignorant and weak to control their own destiny and must act collectively and communally. On the other hand, Lincoln remained steadfast in his belief of an individual’s freedom to determine his or her own destiny.
What would Lincoln do today? He would stay dedicated to the constitution and the principles of our founding fathers. He would view America as a ‘Melting Pot’ and would be sickened by the Democratic tactic of herding individuals into victims groups based on race and creed. He would expect American citizens and corporations to stand up on their own feet and take responsibility for their decisions. Most of all, Lincoln would throw out the challenge for individuals to reach for the stars and work hard to achieve his or her ‘American Dream.’ On the flip side, Lincoln would fight tooth-and-nail against the elite left’s plan, which encourages people to join communally and share the wealth of their labors.
Modern day Republicans are still carrying Lincoln’s torch to light the way of liberty and freedom around the world. One would only need to attend a local Republican gathering to see, that at the grass roots level, the GOP is not a ‘good ol’ boy’ party; but rather a diverse group of individuals dedicated to the belief of self determined destiny and personal freedom.
February 13, 2009
12:00 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
It's a silly proposition to begin with as having grown up in the 20th and 21st centuries, Lincoln's views would have been shaped by 20th and 21st century ideas and mores. And if he were to magically appear in 2009, presumably he might change many of his views since he would then have the benefit of another century of political and economic thought to consider. And Lincoln was certainly in the forefront of the age when it came to modern thought.
Still, it is fruitless to try and speculate... simply because he signed the income tax into law does not mean he would be 'for' today's tax code! Comparing the two situations is silly. Similarly, he offers many strange hypocracies, such as expousing the virtues of Adam Smith while also instituting crippling tarriffs and large government projects that appear to contradict such beliefs... put simply, Lincoln was too complex and lived in too unique and difficult a time to try to draw any difinitive comparisons.
He was a great President. Why would we argue over his legacy? His legacy is EVERY AMERICAN'S LEGACY! Why do we have to continue to reimagine in him in our own selfish modern image? Lincoln was a unique American hero... and let's leave it at that.
February 13, 2009
12:07 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
It's a silly proposition to begin with as having grown up in the 20th and 21st centuries, Lincoln's views would have been shaped by 20th and 21st century ideas and mores. And if he were to magically appear in 2009, presumably he might change many of his views since he would then have the benefit of another century of political and economic thought to consider. And Lincoln was certainly in the forefront of the age when it came to modern thought.
Still, it is fruitless to try and speculate... simply because he signed the income tax into law does not mean he would be 'for' today's tax code! Comparing the two situations is silly. Similarly, he offers many strange hypocracies, such as expousing the virtues of Adam Smith while also instituting crippling tarriffs and large government projects that appear to contradict such beliefs... put simply, Lincoln was too complex and lived in too unique and difficult a time to try to draw any difinitive comparisons.
He was a great President. Why would we argue over his legacy? His legacy is EVERY AMERICAN'S LEGACY! Why do we have to continue to reimagine in him in our own selfish modern image? Lincoln was a unique American hero... and let's leave it at that.
February 13, 2009
12:07 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
It's a silly proposition to begin with as having grown up in the 20th and 21st centuries, Lincoln's views would have been shaped by 20th and 21st century ideas and mores. And if he were to magically appear in 2009, presumably he might change many of his views since he would then have the benefit of another century of political and economic thought to consider. And Lincoln was certainly in the forefront of the age when it came to modern thought.
Still, it is fruitless to try and speculate... simply because he signed the income tax into law does not mean he would be 'for' today's tax code! Comparing the two situations is silly. Similarly, he offers many strange hypocracies, such as expousing the virtues of Adam Smith while also instituting crippling tarriffs and large government projects that appear to contradict such beliefs... put simply, Lincoln was too complex and lived in too unique and difficult a time to try to draw any difinitive comparisons.
He was a great President. Why would we argue over his legacy? His legacy is EVERY AMERICAN'S LEGACY! Why do we have to continue to reimagine in him in our own selfish modern image? Lincoln was a unique American hero... and let's leave it at that.
February 13, 2009
12:30 PM
Ditto writes:
It was 40 years ago a similar comparison was being make by the media. That comparison was John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. This comparison was the acceptable one up until now. Comparing Kennedy and Lincoln is a much closer then the comparison to Obama and Lincoln. Kennedy fought for civil rights and was assassinated. Lincoln fought for civil rights and was assassinated. Both Kennedy and Lincoln were proud of their country. Both Kennedy and Lincoln believed in the American people. Obama is the beneficiary of these fights for civil rights. Obama isn’t proud his country, he’s a member of the blame America first crowd. Obama doesn’t believe in the American people and in individual being the very best they can be.
February 13, 2009
2:28 PM
Jimminy writes:
Well,until Doc Brown gets the flux capacitor perfected,we won't be able to go and ask Honest Abe how he'd address today's issues......We do know he wasn't at all interested in appeasing his country's enemies,nor was he interested in the civil rights of enemy collaborators.He might well be amazed,though,that those who most often invoke his name today are the same people who do behaviors exactly equivalent to the appeasement and collaboration against which he rightly moved with such ruthless despatch.
February 13, 2009
2:37 PM
Jimminy writes:
Well,until Doc Brown gets the flux capacitor perfected,we won't be able to go and ask Honest Abe how he'd address today's issues......We do know he wasn't at all interested in appeasing his country's enemies,nor was he interested in the civil rights of enemy collaborators.He might well be amazed,though,that those who most often invoke his name today are the same people who do behaviors exactly equivalent to the appeasement and collaboration against which he rightly moved with such ruthless despatch.
February 14, 2009
7:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
"..We do know he wasn't at all interested in appeasing his country's enemies,nor was he interested in the civil rights of enemy collaborators"
you really think lincoln would be George Bush?
Wow! lolol
February 14, 2009
11:11 PM
tim writes:
Well lincoln helped end a civil war.
bush started one. lol
February 16, 2009
8:41 AM
Historian Buff writes:
Lincoln would wonder why the half white man is trying desperately to be black.
Lincoln would be appalled at the sea of people living in squalor, unwilling to work to elevate their social stature, depending on handouts from the bloated government in a never ending generational cycle.
Lincoln would be perplexed why after freeing slaves, they have remained prisoners of their victimhood.
And the half white president, his successor, seeks to keep them there.
February 16, 2009
12:10 PM
Bush ?? writes:
"Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting"
24th in pursuing equal justice??lolol
as in Gitmo? lol
25 th in crisis leadership?? lol how about creating crisis? lol
vision? as in WMDS? lolol
February 16, 2009
12:39 PM
benn writes:
Washington should be number 1, primarily because he ceded power when his service was finished.
February 16, 2009
12:52 PM
KingFishWatch writes:
Where do you think that this gentleman may rank some day?
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Buckwheat-Poster-Card-C10230417.jpeg
February 16, 2009
1:05 PM
history buff writes:
Please don't confuse me with the idiot posting at 841 am. Anybody who knows my writing will recognize that it isn't me, because I am not a racist and I wouldn't say things that show a complete ignorance of history.
Lincoln deserves to be rated the best President in our history. Any of the other candidates running in the 1860 election would have let the Confederates secede. Washington and FDR are the only other presidents who faced anything approaching a national crisis equal to the civil war. We are very fortunate that we have elected exceptional leaders during difficult times. It looks like the American people made the best choice available in 2008.
February 16, 2009
1:35 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
NOBODY HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT!
The bill that President Obama called "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s" was jammed down Congress' throat, breaking almost all the promises of bipartisanship and transparency along the way.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed to give members of Congress at least 48 hours to look at the historic legislation before them.
After all, the bill will spend the equivalent of nearly 9% of our GDP while adding $1.2 trillion to our national debt. Obama vows to "create or save" 3.5 million jobs at a cost of $263,000 per job.
Shouldn't it get even a little bit of scrutiny?
Apparently not. The bill went on line sometime early Friday morning, not too long before passing 246-183 with not a single Republican vote and seven Democrats voting against it.
So much for a "bipartisan" plan, another promise broken. And so much for CHANGE and HOPE.
And now Team Messiah is talking about Stimulus-II needed to fix Stimulus-I.
February 16, 2009
1:42 PM
Anon E. Mouse writes:
Lincoln: "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to."
February 16, 2009
1:51 PM
whatever writes:
Didn't seem to matter to pubs when the patriot act and just about every other bill was rammed down the dems throats. But this is just a lie anyway, the pubs had plenty of chance for input and to read it, but they were to busy crying and whinning to do there job.
February 16, 2009
1:58 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
WOULD LINCOLN SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T--OR COULDN'T--READ?
That being the case, how would Lincoln rank the current crowd of Obama/Stimulus supporters who haven't yet read the bill or really know what's in it?
At a minimum, Lincoln would probaly view these morons as dim-witted nitwitts, and imbeciles. He would probably conclude that this happily uninformed and ignorant crowd is easily the very dumbest voter generation in the history of America.
February 16, 2009
2:07 PM
freemarketworks writes:
Lincoln had the one trait that all great American Presidents had; that’s an undying devotion to the concept that all humans are created equal and should not be impeded in their quest for liberty and freedom. The key to truly having this trait is maintaining intregrity and sticking to your beliefs. I think George W. Bush lost track of fiscal responsibility and allowed his administration to be compromised by those who put their self interests infront of the best interests of the United States.
February 16, 2009
2:47 PM
history buff writes:
LOL
Republicans claim they didn't have time to read the stimulus bill. How funny. There are organizations that claim the Republicans don't read any bills.
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive63.htm
February 16, 2009
3:14 PM
Shaggy writes:
Buff,
You do realize that it was physically impossible for ANYONE to read the porkulus before it was voted on right?
Would you sign your name on an exorbitant loan before reading it in it's entirety?
That is exactly what the Democrats and the three Republicans did.
Not ONE of them read it before voting yes to it.
It would be criminal if an attorney did this to a client.
February 16, 2009
3:44 PM
Anonymous writes:
Would you sign your name on an exorbitant loan before reading it in it's entirety?
Gee I wonder if millions of home owners read their home mtgs in its entirety? he he he
February 16, 2009
3:49 PM
whatever writes:
Kinda sounds like the standard operating procedure for the gop the last 8 years, remember the patriot act, the wiring taping legilation, etc...Pubs never gave the dems any say in anything and made them have meeting in the basement.
Obama reaches out for input and all they do is whine and bitch like a bunch of babies.
February 16, 2009
4:05 PM
History - Buff writes:
Buff stands corrected, Republicans were not able to read the porkulus bill before voting on it. As a matter of fact, Republicans were completely locked out of the process by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I apologize for speaking-out-of-turn regarding the GOP and now understand the errors of my ways.
February 16, 2009
4:17 PM
Tbone writes:
No doubt! Obama visiting republicans on capitol hill to discuss this bill is proof that they were completely locked out of the process.
February 16, 2009
4:32 PM
Duh_Learnt_Hand writes:
What Lincoln would have done at this point and time is irrelevant. I just can't believe that Bush made it up to 36. That's about 8 rankings too High for that guy.
February 16, 2009
4:38 PM
Duh_Learnt_Hand writes:
This one's for Shaggy:
He would say there is a Democratic war on Fascism.
He would be right.
He would think it wasn't possible for someone to be as Ignorant as Dubya and still live in America let alone be voted into public office.
February 16, 2009
4:43 PM
Duh_Learnt_Hand writes:
He would say there is a Democratic war on Fascism.
He would be right.
He would think it wasn't possible for someone to be as Ignorant as Dubya and still live in America let alone be voted into public office.
February 16, 2009
5:34 PM
history buff writes:
Looks like identity theft at 405.
The GOP tactics remind me of a flop in basketball. The defensive player falls backward but it is all an act. Basketball fans recognize it for what it is. A sucker play to get the referee to call a foul. Political watchers also recognize the GOP's sucker play.
Obama says let's talk in the spirit of bi-partisanship. The GOP says the only way you will get our support is if you do it our way. Obama says, but your way caused this mess. I want your input on how we can stimulate the economy and get out of this mess. The GOP says, then you aren't being bi-partisan.
Or, the GOP says, the stimulus bill doesn't act fast enough. Obama says, then we better pass this bill now. The GOP then says they don't have time to read the bill. If the Democrats say, let's spend the next couple of months reviewing the bill the appease the slow readers at the GOP, the GOP would then say the Democrats aren't acting quickly enough to stimulate the economy.
I would hate to be a child of one of those GOP politicians. No matter what you do it is wrong.
February 17, 2009
8:24 AM
JMH writes:
G. W. Bush @ 36? LOL... Way too high!
Pretty sure as records are released and more of the criminal & un-American acts of this man and his administration are studied, his numbers will fall even more... but it seems historians already see the failure he is. For you knuckledraggers in the GOP who can't do math judging by your economic records, he is in the bottom 15% of American Presidents! Hell, his one-term daddy is held in higher regard! LOL...
G. W. Bush and the group of crybabies that support the further failure and distruction of America are a disgrace!
I love Charlie Brown's (Sas's) crying like a little girl act about the Stimulus plan (heard this on Rush too... Can you EVER create your own thoughts Charlie Brown?)...
Obama had lunch with, talked with and even had meetings with the same GOP members that are whining about no GOP involvement... (This is the same GOP who never gave one damn about Dems thoughts as they shoved all thier civil liberty attacks down our throats when they had total control... does the midnight vote over the PATRIOT Act ring a bell?) But Obama tried and all he got back was a face slapping. The GOP is still the party of "...you are with us or against us" apparently! Glad their numbers are still falling in regards to registration...
But remember...
It is the GOP THAT GOT US INTO THIS F*CKING MESS in the first place!!!
I wouldn't take driving lessons from someone who has crashed every car they have ever driven, why should Obama take economic advice from a party that has crashed every economy they have been at the "steering wheel" of these last two decades? But he did... and all they offered him was "MORE OF THE SAME"!
Too bad b*tches... your whining is getting old. The GOP cares not about what is best for America, they care only what is best for the GOP! When you guys have ONE success you can point to, then maybe your ideas can be taken seriously... but you are all just getting in the way now! The American public has seen enough of your failure... accept it and try something new.
I realize it may be hard to change when you have swallowed the dogma of the NeoCon cult for so long... but it is time to grow up! Your fairy tales that you bow down to - tax cuts fix everything and trickle down economics - are just that - FAIRY TALES! They don't work and America knows it... that is why you have had your asses handed to you for 2 straight elections! Accept it!
February 17, 2009
8:27 AM
Tim writes:
"Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding"
What this really means is History is writing George W Bush as the worst president in our lifetime. Worse than Nixon.
the bushies who voted him twice are real loosers.
loooosers.
February 17, 2009
8:57 AM
Shaggy writes:
Carter is by far the worst President in our lifetime.
Reagan is by far the best President in our lifetime.
Our current President is off to a horrible start.
He can't even fill his cabinet posts let alone stick to ANY of his campaign promises.
He isn't even a hypocrite, he is a flat out lying sack of S***.
Washington is the problem.
Only Washington can fix this.
Every bill will be viewable online before it is voted on.
We need to pass this bill immediately.
Wheres the change?
Wheres the transparency?
What an idiot!!
February 17, 2009
9:18 AM
RegLib writes:
It's silly to include Bush or even Clinton in a "best and worst presidents" poll this close to their presidencies. It takes decades for emotions to cool, documentation to be revealed, and political / economic consequences to play out. In many ways we're still experiencing the influences of Nixon, Carter, and Reagan.
Personally I think Bush will eventually sink even further to the bottom of the heap, but who knows? Perhaps history will indeed vindicate him the way it did Truman.
February 17, 2009
9:56 AM
JMH writes:
"Our current President is off to a horrible start." - shaggy
Did we think you would say anything else?
Obama could have cured cancer, turned our whole economy around and brought peace to the Middle east in the ONE MONTH he has been in office and you would still say that stupid sh*t!
We get it shaggy, you don't like Obama and NOTHING he does will make you happy...
Well too f*cking bad, you whinning, lying piece of dog-sh*t!
Obama is trying to fix the mess your masters left us! You have NO SUCCESSES or even ONE thing that has made America better in the last 8 years to point to and you are gonna give us your input on the best President? You are one of the 22% who thinks G. W. Bush did a good job!!! It's pretty safe to say you have NO credibility on this issue!
In ONE MONTH Obama has already begun closing down one of the worst human rights abuses in American history (Gitmo), has begun a REAL and responsible withdrawl from Iraq, which was one of, if not the worst American foriegn policy blunders in American history (remind me what we WON again?) and he has just passed one of the biggest investements / stimulus packages in America history in spite of the best efforts of the "Do-Nothing / Stick your head in the Sand" party...He is off to an awesome start...
Just the fact that he has all your NeoCon panties in a bunch shows he is on the right track... If you failure monkeys (who wish for America to fail) were praising him... I would be worried!
February 17, 2009
10:14 AM
JMH writes:
The survey's participants ranked Bush 41st on international relations and 40th on economic management -- ahead of only Herbert Hoover.
February 17, 2009
10:43 AM
Tbone writes:
History will vindicate Bush, JMH!!!!!
Keep telling yourself that, neocon stooges.
February 17, 2009
1:16 PM
GladysKravitz writes:
W @ #36? Well I have to say that he is the worst Prez in my lifetime. If given the choice, I would even vote for Nixon over W hands down! And for an old woman like me...I've been around.