British Expatriate Network

I thought Nixon was bad, but George is seemingly going to beat him for that title:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile...in_history

But it says he's 'the best president since Bill Clinton...' 8)

Yeah, I wouldn't have though the contest would be too close. At least Nixon did some groundbreaking foreign policy.

Hate to kick a man when he's down but the more I see him, the more appalled I am that he was elected.

Fraudulent or not - he's the face of USA for gawd's sake, yet reminds me of a combination of clowns through the ages.

I would say FDR was the worst closely followed by Wilson. FDR for saving American capitalism and Wilson for lying to the left and then taking the US into WWI to protect economic interests of the elite.

I have to disagree with you there Moo. :neutral:

I say if it was not for FDR 'US' would be not on this board giving forth. :smile:

I say a saint hood for FDR he saved the UK and the worlds rear end. :grin:

Now Truman was a Pres who cut the lend-lease goods/payments to the UK when we elected a Labour government!!!! :sad:

To be fair, Lend-Lease had expired by then anyway and was later replaced with Marshall Plan funds, of which UK got a huge amount (but we probably didn't notice as it might have paid off debts that the bankrupt country had accrued during and after the war.)

Hands down and without a doubt it's gotta be James Monroe. I know people feel strongly about DUBYA and the man is clearly a turnip, but Monroe is at a standard untouchable by other mortals. Perhaps if we argue this century you can make the case (if you believe these sorts of things) that Bush is worse than others because he is wantonly destructive. But even this century I'd plug for Herbert Hoover. Hoover does have his champions these days but he was so dick-deep in with business interests that he didn't really seem to give a toss.

Why are people deciding now that Bush is the worst president ever? As I understand it, it takes years after the man has left office before a decision like that can be decided. any policies he puts into place don't influence the country properly until he has left office? and hasn't there been presidents where they were considered excellent presidents at the time but turned out to be not that good and vice versa?

Also, there have been wars in the past that have been controversial but have turned out to be a positive outcome for those countries/societies involved. There have also been wars that were considered a necessity yet were a total failure for those involved. Many, if not all of us here, believe that the Iraq war has been handled totally wrong and the same is starting to happen with Iran (or has been happening for a while). But who is to say that in 20 years time, history shows that this war actually started a huge world peace campaign that really worked and became the starting block for the end of all wars?

Just a few thoughts grin

You've been taking those political courses haven't you, Ben? :grin: Anytime I slag off Bush, my mother and father in law seem to use that old line as a get out clause of any argument. But seriously, I heard that too in college and also believe that there's some truth to it.

The judgement of historical events is usually changed with time. However, that does not mean the accuracy of the judgement is necessarily improved, or consistent throughout the interested populous at the time. There are many cases where the present judgement of an historical event is coloured by the shade of political glasses worn by the judges of that time. Staying with the American presidents, there is a spectrum of opinion about each of them and their acts.

Remember, it's the winner who writes the books, and buries the inconvenient facts.

To third Ben's point let's remember that Ronald Reagan was voted Man of the Millenium a year ago. He wasn't any less divisive than Shrub.

:lol: Would you believe - not recently :lol: But like you, I hear people, especially those who are Bush supporters, take this up in a debate regarding how bad Bush is. And I just remember one of the professors I did have say that it takes something like 20years before they know the true effects of a President and what he did while in office. So when it is thrown at me, and I don't know enough about how the politics work here, it's very difficult to answer. The only good thing on the 'hate Bush' side is the fact that when the country was at war he had more freedom to screw things up.

So, unless the country is at war the President of the US has little to no power to do anything - is that right? If he wishes to bring in a policy and it gets accepted through the House of Reps, rejects by the House of Congress, and the president is adamant he is going to accept it, Congress can still reject it yet again and that is it! It will not get passed and won't come to anything. So what's the point! And if this really is the case, what does it matter whether he is a good president or a bad one - he didn't do anything anyway :razz:

The President cannot create leglislation - only Congress can do that but he can obviously "recommend" (read into that word what you will).

On the flip-side, Congress cannot create a bill without the President's approval and when they send him a bill, he can choose to either sign it, veto it or just ignore it. If he signs it, it's effective immediately and only the Supreme Court can reverse it.

If it's vetoed or ignored, there are a few tricks that can be pulled to either kill it forever or have it passed without the President needing to sign it but usually, each side is aware of the caveats and organises things so that it cannot be bypassed.

The President's real power lies in the veto - just a threat is often enough to get Congress to adapt or alter bills so that they are more President-friendly.

The best part though is that the voting public still wield some power over the whole process, despite the misconception that once officials are elected, you are stuck with them and their pork-barelling for at least four years.

In fact, Congress and the Senate pay close attention to a President's poll ratings and will begin to distance themselves from an unpopular President, as we are seeing currently.

Personally, I can't see this President digging himself out now - he's pushed his luck too far and if the Democrats win more seats in November (which looks very likely), further cans of worms will be opened on situations that were previously sealed up nicely.

I do not know if this is a legit photo but it is 'A Jolly Good One'
http//photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1437/923/1024/Connsign.jpg