And which he lacks in a handful of other swing states, as well. No argument there, at least from me. But his legacy, tenuous as it is, would be best preserved in the most favorably historical light, as a one-term President. He's not going to suddenly turn into Jefferson with a second term. Hell, he's Carter right now, and may slink to LBJ or Hoover, given four more years. IMO.
What's the point of conventions anyway? It seems like a big waste of money from people trying to prove to us that they won't waste money.
Jefferson was a shitty president, as was Hoover. LBJ sabotaged his own potential for greatness and Carter isn't nearly as bad as portrayed by the right, although he was pretty mediocre. I like Obama, but there's been little in his presidency to really become timeless other than being the first black guy. His policies could alleviate the economic crisis, but that isn't sexy history (Who remember the president during the Panic of 1893? It was actually a really big deal.). Unless, an actual civil war threatens his presidency, I see him running in the middle third.
Totally agree, Un. The most stinging indictment of his presidency (IMO) is not only that he has accomplished so little, which is only half the story, but that he had such vast potential to do so much more, and has somehow squandered it. The momentum of his election, and in controlling both Houses, could have been near revolutionary (and I'm no supporter, but that's the truth)....but it now looks like little more than a mildly enthusiastic and largely rambling filibuster, instead.
So true. One looks back on that, and wonders what the hell happened. No matter what side of the aisle.
I'm not going to lie. I was hopeful about the start of his presidency, but he has just been the dark version of W.
Glad to see someone else think there are worse Presidents than Carter. You pegged two that I would include in that list. Hoover was totally out of touch, but Andrew Mellon (Secretary of the Treasury) surely didn't help him become grounded in the realities of the hardships brought on by the depression. Declaring the nation "on sound footing" mere days before the house of cards came crashing down doesn't scream "I got this". LBJ- where to start? I know......asking the question: Do all Presidents from Texas suck? I don't have enough time or the desire to go in great detail, but I will say that getting us deeper involved in Vietnam to placate his defense industry buds is outright criminal. He also took federal programs that were designed to require work and effort for help into a handout. One of his few admirable accomplishments that prevents him from being completely worthless was Medicare and his Civil Rights accomplishments. It is telling that a nearly unknown Senator, Eugene McCarthy, nearly beat an incumbent President in the New Hampshire primary and polled poorly in Wisconsin forcing him to withdraw. Great Society my ass.
Actually, I disagree on the accomplishment part. He accomplished quite a bit, almost a staggering amount. Ending the war in Iraq, bailouts, health care, etc. However, most of that is technocrat type stuff, which get buried in the history pages somewhere between the labor riots of the late 1800s and Leavittown in terms of general interest. He also blew his load on the health care bill, which resulted in mutual dislike amongst the parties because the left wanted the public option they didn't get and the right disowned the plan they originated in 1994. Since then, his presidency has been on lockdown with the Washington infighting.
Healthcare, I give you (if he wins and if it isn't castrated or outright repealed next session - which I believe is doubtful, no matter the elections). Ending the war, the bailouts, would have (or were in process) occurred under any sitting President with a pulse, IMO. JMHO. And you forgot repealing DADT, and the acceleration of LGBT issues, in general, which will be likened to Ike's service integration, in retrospect. I give him that, too. But the inability to fix (or even to feign improvment) the economy will draw the strongest - and I think best - comparisons to Hoover. That he was inept in dealing with the single greatest crisis facing the nation for the entirety of his term, and while focusing on a host of important, but less urgent, domestically social issues, instead, will draw comparisons to LBJ. And I don't think that Carter was a failed President, by any means, just in case I inadvertently sent that vibe. He was somewhat ineffective, but that's not a damning indictment that belongs to him alone, by any measure. I'm by no means a presidential scholar, just my $.02
I agree with you on the war. The Iraqis practically threw us out when they refused to continue immunity The auto bailout was a play to save Union jobs. I believe a Republican President would have allowed them to restructure.
Give me Wilson. Got income tax, direct election of senators, and prohibition passed under his watch--none of which ever should've happened. Took us to WWI for pretty much the sole purpose of trying to get us embroiled in a league of nations. And, as I recall, after running on an anti-war platform. Wilson sucked. (That sounded really libertarian, didn't it?)
Teapot Dome + Great Railroad Strike + Bonus Bill= Harding the Worst President Ever, with Jimmy Coward not far behind.
James Buchanon and Andrew Johnson were unbelievably awful presidents. Buchanon did jack shit as far as dealing with the growing divide and scooted out of Dodge as fast as possible. Johnson pissed off nearly everyone and nearly succeeding in keeping slavery going with his non-action on the Black Codes, then was impotent after his impeachment.
