Orborde's article is very interesting and it go me thinking...

How would you guys rank the presidents?

Let's say the top five and bottom five of all time. Any less is fine, but here is how I would stack up the top five at least :

5) Abraham Lincoln
4) Andrew Jackson
3) Ronald Reagan
2) FDR
1) George Washington

I pretty much would clump the gilded age presidents as the bottom of the barrel with the addition of Coolidge and HArding.

these aren't in any order
top 5

FDR
Kennedy
Clinton
Lincoln
Carter

bottom 5

George W Bush
Reagan
Johnson
Nixon
Hoover

No particular order within each list.

Top 5:
Washington
Lincoln
Polk
Reagan
Truman

Worst 5:
Grant
Harding
Jackson
L. Johnson
Carter

Is Fusa tuiarrrnameistoolong:
Just out of curiousity, on what are you basing your placement of George W. Bush and Reagan? I can certainly understand not liking him, but honestly, Bush's term isn't even over yet, and I've never met a single person who would say that the few flaws of Reagan's presidency outweighed his presiding over one of the greatest economic booms in modern history and the defeat of the Soviet Union. There are so many presidents that have had resoundingly, unarguably atrocious terms that it seems to me that you're basing your list on petty partisanship (oh, and having Jimmy Carter in your top 5 isn't helping much).

Dimmick, I thought the same exact thing. On that note:

Top 5
Lincoln
Polk
Reagan
Jackson
Theodore Roosevelt

Bottom 5
Carter
Johnson
Adams
Hoover
Grant/Harding

Quincy, I'm assuming?

Oh, and no fair lumping Grant and Harding together - you got a whole extra spot that way... :rolleyes:

I don't understand why I'm seeing so much of Jackson in the top five. Sure, he was popular while President, brought the common man into government, and so forth, but he also managed to damage the federal government so much that it nearly fell over during Van Buren's presidency.

Which I suppose might not be a bad thing to some people.

At least I'm not seeing any Van Buren hate around here, though. That poor guy's problems were all Jackson's fault.

The reason I had Jackson in my top five was because of what you said. He not only brought the common man to government, he was a tough fisted President wh oI believe temporarily halted the South's resentment and civil war talks (SC nullification crisis). I have to agree though, Jackson did set up Van Burren for a fall.

The nullification crisis was about the only good thing that Jackson did - I heartily disagree that bringing the common man into government was a good thing. It's one thing to crack open a rampant spoils system and bring someone from outside "the system" into government, but news flash: I don't want the "average American" running things. I want people who are smarter, more motivated and have more integrity than the average American. If this means that they have to come from a higher social class at the exclusion of the lower classes, then so be it.

"If this means that they have to come from a higher social class at the exclusion of the lower classes, then so be it. "

Exclusion, Would this mean the actual barring of lower classes from takeing office?

If so, Why not stick to the current policy that the members of the higher social class get offices in the goverment becuse they have exprince in politicts so they wont screw things up by accident and are much richer which may help aviod petty bribery. Not to mention they are nominated from the elite of the Republicans and Democrates.
___
Side note for awarness:The petty bribery thing seems meaningless though, becuse it dosent seem to stop major corrperations from brieing seneators, ex aspartame in Diet Soda has killed many people (becuse it becomes a posion{caused the gulf war syndrome} if the can gets too hot + helps tp cause diebeties more than regualr soda) but a bill to put warning lables on cans never got through becuse senators are backed finnancially by coke and pepsie who worried about loseing tons of money. So people still are loseing years off thire lives and dieing for the profits of major corrperations. :(
___
cant say much about the top 5 presidents becuse I am still going through AP US.

Why isn't JFK up there, I dont know much about him besides the Cuban Missle Crises, but he is always hailed to as one of the greatest preisdents? Could this be simply becuse he had a heros death to overshadow the pitfalls of his term?

No, I just meant that if having the most able people in office means that the lower classes are by default just unable to meet the requirements, I'm fine with that. I just mean it in the context that, generally speaking, lower class citizens don't have the sorts of opportunities that upper class citizens have simply by virtue of them being able to afford the best schools, having connections to get the best jobs to prepare them for government service, and other such things. If some lower class person is willing to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work their tail off to become as highly competent and motivated as I would like my government workers to be, then by all means they should be able to do so. I just want to be clear that I am NOT in favor of allowing someone into the government simply because I feel sorry for his disadvantaged position or any other non-competency-based criterion - I am in favor of strict meritocracy when it comes to things like this.

He performed admirably in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he royally botched the Bay of Pigs invasion and didn't do too much else of real substance in office. He was the major spur behind our space program in the 60s (which is admittedly a fairly major accomplishment), and he was really big on promoting patriotic and humanistic programs (such as the Peace Corps), but I maintain that his assassination earned him all kinds of pity points, which along with the image of him and his family as representative of a young, average American family, has helped his image immensely and yes, even unduly.

Top 5:
1.Washington
2.Lincoln
3.FDR
4.Reagen
5.TR

Worst 5:
1.Grant
2.Adams Q.
3.L. Johnson
4.Harding
5.Carter