DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:22 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Who Is Your Least Favorite President |
|
Finally, a DU Poll Bush can win....
|
Webster Green
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:25 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Bush makes me long for Nixon...... |
|
These guys accomplish the equivalent of Watergate on a daily basis.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Bush Almost Makes Me Long For Jefferson Davis.... |
AntiCoup2K4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
33. Bush makes me wish Jefferson Davis had been successful |
|
We would have never had to put up with Junior. Or his Daddy. Or DeLay. Or Lott. Or Jesse Helms. Or Zell Miller. Or Strom Thurmond. Or Jebbie. Or the Southern Baptists. Or the KKK.
And just in case anybody thinks I'm South bashing, I would have instituted a liberal immigration policy for cool people from Dixie B-)
|
ieoeja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Is this who you meant by Andrew Johnson? Why would anyone dislike Andrew Johnson?
|
Cobalt Violet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Because I can't stand Reagan either.
|
Ficus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. apparently some in congress at the time |
|
I guess. But hey, Clinton was impeached and not convicted either.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Because He Thwarted Reconstruction.... |
|
That's why he was impeached....
Of course the Radical Republicans didn't say that's why they wanted to impeach him...
Funny, the Republicans were the good guys back then...
|
mobuto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
I'd probably have been a Republican, but Republicans and Democrats both represented both good interests and very bad interests. Republicans were, remember, also the party of religious fanatics and large business interests, and Democrats were the party of poor, Northern workers and immigrants. The parties were large coalitions with some meritorious parts and some embarassing parts.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. But The Rs Of That Day Were Tireless Advocates Of The Freedman... |
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
21. Of course, having the Radical Republicans in charge of Reconstruction |
|
Edited on Tue Mar-16-04 06:01 PM by Art_from_Ark
in the South would be like having the Neocons in charge of "reconstruction" in Iraq.
The "good" in the Republican Party died with Lincoln, was resurrected with the Progressive movement, and has been locked in a cage for most of the time since then.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
24. But The Radical Republicans Were On The Right Side Of History |
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. In some ways, yes, in some ways, no |
|
Edited on Tue Mar-16-04 06:12 PM by Art_from_Ark
The RR's were involved in the scandals in the Grant misadministration, they stole the election from Samuel Tilden in 1876, they were the robber barons during the Gilded Age, and they very well may have been responsible for Lincoln's death. A cynic would say that the only reasons they supported the freedmen were to shore up their base in the South and to keep them out of the North.
|
leyton
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Hmm... could go either way |
|
Andrew Johnson was weak, though because congress was dominated by radical republicans that's not necessarily his fault. But his presidency didn't accomplish much. On the other hand, he at least remained with the union, I believe he could have gone with the Confederates.
But yeah, Andrew Jackson initiated the trail of tears, I believe, and for that he should be included in this poll.
|
mobuto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
9. Because Andrew Johnson was a terrible President |
|
a lot worse as President than Andrew Jackson. Not worse, however, than George W. Bush.
|
ieoeja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Because he refused to punish the South following the Civil War?
And Andrew Jackson was a lot worse. People seem to think of the Trail of Tears as just another incident of brutality against the Native American population. Had he arranged for the greatest of comfort in their trip and relocated them to a land flowing in milk and honey, it was still a horrendously stupid action that cost the United States dearly in future dealings with Native American nations further west.
The Cherokee had a written constitution. They had public education. They had churches, plantations, and factories. They applied for statehood. Congress approved. The Supreme Court approved. But Jackson said "no" and, relying upon his popularity with the military, threatened to rip up the US Constitution should Congress and the Court intervene.
Instead of the State of Cherokee paving the way for Native American assimilation into the United States of America, the Trail of Tears stood as an example that no amount of assimilation would be acceptable.
And this was the fault of one man: Andrew Jackson.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
27. John Marshall's Court did intervene |
|
And Jackson replied, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
If Jackson were alive today, he'd fit right in with the neocons.
|
mobuto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
|
Because Jackson expanded the right to vote to millions of people who had been previously disenfranchised. Before Jackson, this nation was essentially an oligarchy. Only rich, landed men (white, of course) were allowed to vote. Jackson was really instrumental in pushing through universal sufferage. No, it didn't cover women, Native Americans or slaves, but it the stage for the later efforts to do just that. Every citizen could vote - that is really the signature of a democracy, and something then without precedent. He fought to weaken the power of corporations and banks, helping the poor and the middle classes.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
40. Jackson's reckless monetary policies led to the Panic of 1837 |
|
Edited on Tue Mar-16-04 08:48 PM by Art_from_Ark
Jackson encouraged "wildcat banks" to set up shop out in the boonies, where they took depositers' silver and gold and issued paper money that wasn't worth its face value outside of the town it was issued in-- and even in the town it was issued in, it was often used at a discount to real gold and silver, because no one one could be certain when the bank might close up shop and move out. Then Jackson had the nerve to ask for payment of debts to the government in specie (gold and silver), which many people could not do because they had been swindled by the wildcat banks. The one bank that people could trust, the Bank of the United States, had its charter revoked (indirectly, it was allowed to lapse) by Jackson. The next year, when Jackson was safely out of office, the Panic of 1837 struck, resulting in a severe economic depression that would last throughout his hapless successor's term.
As for opening up the vote to the "disenfranchised", he mostly targeted the rednecks who wanted to open up more Indian land to settlement. He never would have been in favor of giving the right to vote to non-whites and females.
Jackson was also notorious for starting the spoils system, in which he doled out government jobs to cronies who were otherwise unqualified for their positions.
And don't get me started on Jackson's genocidal policies.
In short, if Jackson were alive today, he would be a neocon hero.
|
mobuto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
38. Jackson isn't responsible for the Trail of Tears |
|
The Trail of Tears occurred during Van Buren's Administration.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
44. It was set in place by Jackson |
|
He had already been forcibly removing Cherokees from their lands at the time that John Marshall's Supreme Court, in 1831, ruled in favor of the Cherokees. But Jackson flagrantly ignored the ruling and did everything he could to make life miserable for the Cherokees. As someone who has worked alongside Cherokees, I know that they have a special dislike for this bastard.
|
redsoxliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
36. he slaughtered indians. n/t |
LiberalBushFan
(831 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:30 PM
Response to Original message |
|
by far the worst. Instead of doing his job he let some inbecile sit in his office and give all the orders.
|
redsoxliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
by far the worst. Instead of doing his job he let some inbecile sit in his office and give all the orders.
LOLOLOLOLOL classic.
|
methinks2
(894 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Jackson was a murderous man. He would get my second vote.
|
sweetladybug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH
|
chelsea0011
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:41 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Bush sucks, but Nixon and his crooks were evil |
|
This must be a young crowd. Vietnam, Xmas bombings, Kent State, Weatherman, slush funds, Watergate. And I'm just getting started.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. "Nixon sucks, but Bush and his crooks were evil" |
|
This must be a young crowd, Iraq, The Patriot Act, The Anti-Gay Maqrriage Amendment, sweetheart contracts to Haliburton, the outing of CIA agents. And I'm just getting started.
|
chelsea0011
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. I'll see your Patriot act and raise you a Watergate |
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
32. Watergate was child's play compared to the current gang of crooks |
|
Nixon, as bad as he was, did not have anywhere near the power that the current cabal do.
Nixon-- Democratic Congress, relatively unfettered press, progressive Supreme Court bu$h-- Reactionary congress, corporate whore press, neocon Supreme Court
I remember Watergate very well. Every night, the news would be about Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Later, my US Government teacher brought a TV to class so we could watch Sam Ervin, John Dean, and the Watergate proceedings live.
|
AntiCoup2K4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
34. Actually, it's pretty much the same gang of crooks. |
|
The Bush Criminal Empire has been the "men behind the curtain" of every Republican presidency since Eisenhower. Ike figured out their bullshit and wouldn't play along. Some reports even suggest that Nixon was resisting and that Watergate was created so they could dump him. That's why numbskulls Ford and Reagan (and Junior for that matter) were perfect frontmen for the regime.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
35. That pretty much explains why the Repugs prefer numbskulls for candidates |
Snow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:45 PM
Response to Original message |
16. What? No mexican du-ers? |
|
I agree with Bush-2 first, Bush-1 second, Raygun third, and then Polk fourth
Polk was the 18th century version of Bush - the last of Andrew Jackson's proteges, and just as dedicated to expansionism. This man took half of another sovereign nation and added it to the US. And we wonder why Mexico struggles with poverty. They actually occupied Mexico City for a time.
|
VolcanoJen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:48 PM
Response to Original message |
17. GWB runs away with it. I never knew I could despise a leader... |
|
... more than I despised his father.
I shock myself, sometimes. Thanks, GW!
|
Zell Millerish
(3 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:56 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Conservative Democrats should be in there as well |
|
Given the progressive leanings of the party, shouldn't more conservative Democrats be in there as well? LBJ would get some votes?
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Hehe coincidentally your name is Zell Millerish... |
Zell Millerish
(3 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. Similarities to Miller |
|
Just like Zell Miller, I am a Republican cloaked as a Democrat!;-)
|
Snow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
29. Welcome, Zell - i hope we can turn you to the Dark - err Democratic - Side |
|
and, no, LBJ screwed up big time with his fight against the commies, but largely redeems himself in history with the civil rights changes and the war on poverty.
|
Zell Millerish
(3 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
31. Dark - err Democratic - Side |
|
Truth be told, I was sent here by the RNC to put you people on "Double Secret Probation"! You see you can tell I am Republicans by my use of expression "you people". Only an elitist, poor people hating, rights trampling Republican would use such an insensitive expression to address such astute noble (if misguided)people like Democrats!
:evilgrin:
|
Snow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
41. Hmmm, you certainly show all the symptoms of RNC |
|
membership, including the linguistic deficiencies. Stick around, we'll teach you some good marxist populist rhetoric.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 05:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Bush I didn't do nearly as much damage as his son has done. And Ronnie Raygun, although no prize himself, is better than the neocon clones that he spawned.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
28. They just keep getting worse, don't they? |
|
I shudder to think what repug might follow in Dubyuh's footsteps! :scared:
|
Clyyyde
(28 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
|
It's going to be Rudy, mark my words.
|
no name no slogan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message |
30. Either Reagan or Woodrow Wilson |
|
IMHO, Wilson can NEVER be forgiven for inventing the modern propaganda and war machine that has run the US for almost 100 years.
Without his efforts to turn a relatively peaceful, docile nation into a bunch of raving warmongers just so a few American corporations could be war profiteers this world would not be nearly as screwed up as it is today.
|
Piperay
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-16-04 08:51 PM
Response to Original message |
42. Any repug president looks good |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:52 PM
Response to Original message |