I agree with WalterMitty and Tammany Hall Republican.
Eisenhower was a good President, but not a great President. Eisenhower got the federal highway act passed and he led a stable economy.
But on the downside, he was a lackluster President. But, it was not his fault for some part, the congress was very democratic beginning in early 1955 and to the end of his term. Eisenhower put forth good legislation, but it failed to come forth because of the congress.
I believe that eh could have been a near great President, had it not been for the democratic congress. Thank you.
Tell me, Gporter, have you read Master of the Senate? If you had, then you know that LBJ and Rayburn bent over backwards to work with Eisenhower, and they passed everything he asked for. Hack!
As a matter of fact I have. Do not under estimate me.
But, if the republicans had controlled congress, then Eisenhower would not have had to worked with congress quite as hard. He would have gotten bills passed eaisly.
If you knew politics, you would know that a republican president can work eaiser with a republican congress, then a GOP president can with a democratic congress even if they are able to work with them. You must have not understood politics to ask a politically dumb question.
Yes. Just as a Democratic president works easier with a Democratic Congress than a Republican one (Clinton being an exception).
Ike was definitely a good president. I would put him in the top 10. And I reject the notion that he "dragged his feet" on civil rights. Truman may have issued an executive order integrating the military, but it was never enforced until Eisenhower took office. Remember, too, his sending of federal marshals to Little Rock Central. He also appointed Earl Warren, the Chief Justice who presided over
Brown v. Board. He pushed for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 as well. He receives too little credit from overwhelmingly liberal historians because he was a Republican, and as such, Truman, JFK, and LBJ also receive too much credit because they were Democrats.
On the foreign policy front, Ike was even better. He certainly stood up to the Soviet Union they way he should have. His experience as a general and the fact that he was primarily a military man probably helped there.
His presicency was certainly not without its flaws (the economic recessions, U2, etc.), but over all it was a time of relative peace and economic prosperity. Of course, he wasn't entirely responsible for that (much like Clinton in the 90s), but he wasn't entirely responsible for the recessions either. In all, he is one of my favorite presidents, if not my very favorite. I certainly would have voted for him both times he ran.
He also gets some negative marks for openly courting the segregationist vote, a first for a Republican candidate.
I have never heard this charge, and I don't know how he did that. The Democrats nominated a known racist (Adlai Stevenson) to run against him twice, and the first time around, in 1952, they also nominated a segregationist (John Sparkman) for vice president. Not exactly smart to court segregationists with those kind of candidates running against you (much like Nixon against Wallace in 1968).
And remember, when Eisenhower ran for reelection in 1956, the Republican platform came out in support of the
Brown decision, but the Democratic platform did not.
Poll
