Any Presidents "Larger Than Life"?

[Lincoln Republican]

Who are your picks for

Presidents you would consider to be "Larger Than Life"?

Presidents you would consider to be "Good But Not Great"?

Presidents you would consider to be "Run Of The Mill"?

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

My picks

Larger than life - Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Reagan

Good but not great - J. Adams, Jackson, Cleveland, McKinley, Wilson, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon

Run of the mill - Grant, B Harrison, Coolidge, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford

Below Par - Van Buren, A. Johnson, Arthur, Harding, Carter

[PBrunsel]

Larger than Life:

George Washington is the obvious answer. Here is a man who stood over 6 feet tall in an age where men were lucky to be 5'5. He had a booming voice and was built well. He was a millitary hero (though eh won few battles, he did win the big ones) and had a huge frame. He was like God on Earth to the new USA.

Good but Not Great:

Chester A. Arthur, the forgotten President. Arthur modernized the navy, passed civil service reform, and cleaned up the Postal System, yet we forget about him.

Run of the Mill:

The perfect mediocre President is James Monroe. He had a good economy and didn't do a dang thing with it. He had a peaceful world, and used it to buy Florida. He was a good and decent fellow, but was in no way a good President.

Below Par:

Benjamin Harrison, the Billion Dollar President. He allowed the Grand Army of the Republic to dominate him and shrunk from responcibility.

[Reaganfan]

Larger than Life:

Ronald Reagan, a President who...if it had not been for him...we may not all be alive right now. He brought America back the great times it missed during the 1970's. The 1980's gave birth to over a billion new babies worldwide. A truly great man for a truly great decade.

Good but Not Great:

Calvin Coolidge, a good President who was forgotten in history due to his unpopular successor Herbert Hoover, and the 3 1/4 terms of Franklin Roosevelt. Add George H. W. Bush to this category as well.

Run of the Mill:

James Madison. Looked back at kindly, but not much.

Below Par:

Warren Harding. A man elected for a new decade...but did not live up to expectations. (NO PUN INTENDED)

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Presidents you would consider to be "Larger Than Life"?

Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, FDR, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln

Presidents you would consider to be "Good But Not Great"?

Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower

Presidents you would consider to be "Run Of The Mill"?

George Bush I, James Monroe?

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

[Reaganfan]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

[Alcon]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

He should be elevated because of his Katrina handling?  If you say so.

[Reaganfan]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

He should be elevated because of his Katrina handling?  If you say so.

You don't get it. The democrats wanna believe that because the war is hectic and Bush has low approval, that he will go down in history as a bad president...and it's just not true. He will always be remembered as being the "FDR" in 9-11-01's time of war. You can't judge a wartime president right away.

[© tweed]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

He should be elevated because of his Katrina handling?  If you say so.

You don't get it. The democrats wanna believe that because the war is hectic and Bush has low approval, that he will go down in history as a bad president...and it's just not true. He will always be remembered as being the "FDR" in 9-11-01's time of war. You can't judge a wartime president right away.

Um you didn't just compare al-qaeda to the Nazis, did you?  That illustrates a poor concept of history.

I try not to talk to you but that just really pissed me off.

The Nazis controlled all of Europe and would have won had they not invaded the CCCP.  al-qaeda is a loosely knit group of people on caves who control no land to speak of.

And so on.

[Lincoln Republican]

Strictly speaking, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are Nazis.  They control their adherents through Nazi tactics.

Al-Qaeda has an evil and far reaching influence in many parts of the world.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and ran for all intents and purposes a Nazi regime.

Yes, there are many similarities between the Nazi thugs of the 1930's and 1940's, and the al-Qaeda thugs and the Taliban thugs of the 2000's.

So yes, you can compare al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the Nazis.

And I do have a good knowledge of history. 

[© tweed]

Strictly speaking, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are Nazis.  They control their adherents through Nazi tactics.

Al-Qaeda has an evil and far reaching influence in many parts of the world.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and ran for all intents and purposes a Nazi regime.

Yes, there are many similarities between the Nazi thugs of the 1930's and 1940's, and the al-Qaeda thugs and the Taliban thugs of the 2000's.

So yes, you can compare al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the Nazis.

And I do have a good knowledge of history. 

Al qaeda is to the nazis as the CPUSA is/was to the communist party of the Soviet Union

The Nazis controlled ALL OF EUROPE.  Al Qaeda doesn't control any country.

You can compare their tactics, possibly, but the fact is the Nazi threat was immeasurably larger than the al Qaeda threat.

[A18]

It's not like it matters. In World War I, there was no threat at all, and Wilson (the worst president ever, except perhaps for FDR) goes down as "near great."

[Gabu]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

First, "the toughest ... the world has ever seen"?  The current death toll for Katrina is 1,417.  The highest this could possibly reach is just under 3,000.  Compare this with, say, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, in which 8,000 people died.  9/11 was indeed the largest terrorist attack in history, but that's mostly because there haven't been all that many terrorist attacks in history on a grand scale.  In 2003, 35,000 Europeans died from the heat wave that occurred.  As for the tsunami, yeah, that was pretty bad, but it was also over in Southeast Asia.  I don't see what it has to do with Bush.

Were 9/11 and Katrina tragic events that one would preferably like not to see again.  Sure, of course, and I don't mean to downplay them, but calling them "the toughest ... the world has ever seen" is a bit overdoing it.

Second, why does it make a president's performance better to have been faced with disasters?  It seems to me that one should evaluate a president's performance on his performance...

[A18]

Basically, the criteria for being a great president is getting us into a war, preferably combined for a really awful set of domestic policies.

[skybridge]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

First, "the toughest ... the world has ever seen"?  The current death toll for Katrina is 1,417.  The highest this could possibly reach is just under 3,000.  Compare this with, say, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, in which 8,000 people died.  9/11 was indeed the largest terrorist attack in history, but that's mostly because there haven't been all that many terrorist attacks in history on a grand scale.  In 2003, 35,000 Europeans died from the heat wave that occurred.  As for the tsunami, yeah, that was pretty bad, but it was also over in Southeast Asia.  I don't see what it has to do with Bush.

Were 9/11 and Katrina tragic events that one would preferably like not to see again.  Sure, of course, and I don't mean to downplay them, but calling them "the toughest ... the world has ever seen" is a bit overdoing it.

Second, why does it make a president's performance better to have been faced with disasters?  It seems to me that one should evaluate a president's performance on his performance...

Not only that, Bush did everything he possibly could to AVOID those disasters. [/sarcasm] Reminds me of how Caligula once complained that nobody would remember his totally disaster free reign.

[Nym90]

Strictly speaking, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are Nazis.  They control their adherents through Nazi tactics.

Al-Qaeda has an evil and far reaching influence in many parts of the world.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and ran for all intents and purposes a Nazi regime.

Yes, there are many similarities between the Nazi thugs of the 1930's and 1940's, and the al-Qaeda thugs and the Taliban thugs of the 2000's.

So yes, you can compare al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the Nazis.

And I do have a good knowledge of history. 

Al qaeda is to the nazis as the CPUSA is/was to the communist party of the Soviet Union

The Nazis controlled ALL OF EUROPE.  Al Qaeda doesn't control any country.

You can compare their tactics, possibly, but the fact is the Nazi threat was immeasurably larger than the al Qaeda threat.

Exactly. There was a very real possibility that the Nazis would take over the world. I don't see much chance of Al-Qaeda doing that.

[Bugs]

Larger:  Washington, Lincoln, TR, Reagan.

Good:  JAdams, Monroe, Polk, Hayes, Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, GWBush.

Run:  Jefferson, Madison, JQAdams, Jackson, Van Buren, WHHarrison, Tyler, Taylor, AJohnson, Garfield, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Nixon, GBush.

Subpar:  Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, BHarrison, Harding, JBJ, Ford, Carter, Clinton.

It's good to do this every now and then.  I looked at my posts from earlier similar threads, and I seem to have changed my mind some.

[skybridge]

Why do so many people list Washington as larger than life, implying some sort of greatness? Granted, it was good he won the revolutionary war, but what did he do as president other than lavish in pomp and ceremony, and use military force to crush a rebellion against taxes owed to centralized lack of representation? Not all that different from what he originally said he was fighting against...

[Virginian87]

Larger:  Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt

Good: John Adams, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Polk, Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley, Wilson, Truman, Reagan.

Run:  Madison, JQAdams, Van Buren, WHHarrison, Tyler, Fillmore, AJohnson, Garfield, Taft, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, George H.W. Bush, Clinton.

Subpar:  Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, BHarrison, Harding, Carter, George W. Bush.

[Inmate Trump]

Don't think I've left anyone out...

Larger than life
Ronald Reagan; FDR; Abraham Lincoln; George Washington

Good but not great
Bill Clinton; Richard Nixon;, Lyndon Johnson; Woodrow Wilson; Theodore Roosevelt; William McKinnley; James Garfield; James K. Polk; Thomas Jefferson

Run of the mill
George H.W. Bush; Gerald Ford; John F. Kennedy; Dwight Eisenhower; Harry Truman; Calvin Coolidge; William Howard Taft; Grover Cleveland; Benjamin Harrison; Chester Arthur; Rutherford Hayes; John Quincy Adams; James Monroe; James Madison; John Adams

Below Par
George W. Bush; Jimmy Carter; Herbert Hoover; Warren Harding; Ulysses S. Grant; Andrew Johnson; James Buchanan; Franklin Pierce; Millard Fillmore; Zachary Taylor; John Tyler; William Henry Harrison; Martin Van Buren; Andrew Jackson

[YRABNNRM]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

First, "the toughest ... the world has ever seen"?  The current death toll for Katrina is 1,417.  The highest this could possibly reach is just under 3,000.  Compare this with, say, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, in which 8,000 people died.  9/11 was indeed the largest terrorist attack in history, but that's mostly because there haven't been all that many terrorist attacks in history on a grand scale.  In 2003, 35,000 Europeans died from the heat wave that occurred.  As for the tsunami, yeah, that was pretty bad, but it was also over in Southeast Asia.  I don't see what it has to do with Bush.

Were 9/11 and Katrina tragic events that one would preferably like not to see again.  Sure, of course, and I don't mean to downplay them, but calling them "the toughest ... the world has ever seen" is a bit overdoing it.

Second, why does it make a president's performance better to have been faced with disasters?  It seems to me that one should evaluate a president's performance on his performance...

SHUT UP DEMOCRAT

[Gabu]

Presidents you would consider to be "Below Par"?

Dubya, and, well, there's no one else on his level of suckitude, is there?

A two-term wartime Republican President faced with the toughest disasters and attacks the world has ever seen? (9-11, Katrina, Tsunami). I think he is atleast run of the mill.

First, "the toughest ... the world has ever seen"?  The current death toll for Katrina is 1,417.  The highest this could possibly reach is just under 3,000.  Compare this with, say, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, in which 8,000 people died.  9/11 was indeed the largest terrorist attack in history, but that's mostly because there haven't been all that many terrorist attacks in history on a grand scale.  In 2003, 35,000 Europeans died from the heat wave that occurred.  As for the tsunami, yeah, that was pretty bad, but it was also over in Southeast Asia.  I don't see what it has to do with Bush.

Were 9/11 and Katrina tragic events that one would preferably like not to see again.  Sure, of course, and I don't mean to downplay them, but calling them "the toughest ... the world has ever seen" is a bit overdoing it.

Second, why does it make a president's performance better to have been faced with disasters?  It seems to me that one should evaluate a president's performance on his performance...

SHUT UP DEMOCRAT

i have been vanquished

[adam]

Larger than Life:
I personally think that Harry Truman is one of the greatest and most underated Presidents in American history. He is the first president to address civil rights and when faced with a tough decision in WWII he decided to save millions of dollars and thousands of lives by dropping bombs on Japan. He is a true leader and I think that we really need another such as himself.

Good but not Great:
Sex scandals aside, Clinton was a pretty good president. He managed to keep America out of any major military conflicts and did a good job of handling the economy. He had his ups and downs, but overal all he was an A- president.

Run of the Mill:
Jimmy Carter. He was just the wrong president at the wrong time. He had decent economical skills but poor leadership qualities. I wouldn't say that he is under-rated...but more so over-rate in the sense that people put to much of the blame on his shoulders. All in all - he was an average president during a time that required a great president.

Below Par:
FDR. I frankly loathe this man. He served 4 terms breaking the presidential tradition set forth by our founding fathers and when he learned that he couldn't get what he want out of the Supreme Court, he just placed more judges on the bench that agreed with him. If there was ever a president who shat on the constitution and the founding principles of America - than it was FDR.