Headlines are abuzz over the Quinnipiac University poll that lists Ronald Reagan as the best post-WWII president. Okay, okay. So that's not the headline--at least at non-FlynnFiles news outlets. The headline is that Americans polled by Quinnipiac believe George W. Bush the worst president since WWII. Inspired by Quinnipiac, I've conducted my own poll, of me, to discover who I think the best and worst presidents were since World War II. There's a margin of error in the poll's sampling techniques, so I reserve the right to revise my scientific findings.

The three worst...

BAD: George W. Bush...Iraqis, campaign donors, schoolchildren...no one is safe from his meddling.

WORSE: Jimmy Carter...Would have been truly dangerous had he not been so inept.

WORST: Lyndon Johnson...Vietnam, the Great Society, what's there to like?

The three best...

NOT AS BAD AS THE OTHER GUYS: Dwight Eisenhower...Didn't have a sales gimmick featuring such words as "New," "Fair," "Deal," "Society," or "Frontier." Ended another one of those "Democrat wars." The last bald man elected president.

BETTER: John F. Kennedy...Cut taxes, got tough with the Soviets, wasn't so ambitious with domestic programs as other Democrats (perhaps because most of the bad ideas had been tried by that point). They don't make Kennedys like they used to.

BEST: Ronald Reagan...Slashed taxes, spent the Communists (at least the ones in Europe) into extinction (or at least hybernation), made "USA" chants at sporting events fashionable.

Who am I to disagree with the American people that Ronald Reagan is the best postwar president? He is.

Amen brother Flynn. Right on.

Looking at your list, I find I agree. Bush still has a couple more years to try for the bottom, though. With the way the rino's are acting, and the looming mid-terms not looking so good, he may make a run for the bottom.

Dan,

I'm surprised you put Bush as bad...I know you're not a fan, but come on, he's a sitting president. You can't make an accurate judgement of a president until they leave office and you can look at the historical context and so forth. I believe history will redeem George W. Bush in time, and he will actually go down as a President who was quite visionary with foreign policy.

Kennedy was terrible. The Cuban Missle Crisis was his fault, and it was hardly solved by "staring down the Soviets" but rather capitulating and taking the missles out of Turkey. It was because of him the world came within a hair of all out nuclear war. That's why it wouldn't come as a surprise to me at all if there was some conspiracy with the CIA or Pentagon to make sure he didn't make any more mistakes like that.

Chris I agree with you and would add several things that may not be considered visionary by the end of his administration but may over the longer term. I am not optomistic about these but do have my fingers crossed. One: Iraq, while looking like nation building now, may turn into the first domino. Two: While I hate gov't programs,especially expensive ones, the drug program could turn out to be a smart idea if it allows us to begin to unwind all the bad attributes of medicare and medicaid. Three: Could even the education program take us in a new and better direction with more attention on children and less on teachers; and eventually more power back at the states? I can hope, can't I??

Somewhat true about Kennedy and let's not forget that he ramped up our involvement in Southeast Asia.

But, he was a dynamic leader and a decision maker who was not worried about polls or getting political points. Was his own man and when he needed to be tough, he was. As the CMC showed. There's something to be said for a leader who gives his people a sense of security (much like Reagan) and Kennedy did that.

Still agree with Dan's assessment and ranking.

To the Chrises: As I noted, there's a margin of error in my poll, so perhaps Nixon might have been worse than W. But I'm struck by the fact that Nixon got us out of an unwise war and Bush got us into one. Perhaps I should have just exluded W because he still has 2-plus years and his presidency needs some perspective before we can truly judge it in history. But, this is a blog, not a history book, so I, like the people taking the poll I cite, ignore such things. That Bush is "a President who was quite visionary with foreign policy" is a notion I don't dispute. It's one of the things that makes me dislike his presidency so much.

Reagan being chosen the greatest post-war president is quite simply a "slam dunk". In fact, comparing him to others would be similar to comparing Roseanne Barr to Pam Anderson in a bikini contest.... A slam dunk!

How about saying Reagan is the best president ... ever? Not just since WWII.

Seriously, just watch Reagan's first innaugural address, and tell me you're not fired up. The guy made you proud to be an American.

Personally,

I like Ike a heck of a lot. I would definitely say he beats JFK, due to his Washington-esque warnings of the military-industrial-congressional complex and toughness on illegal immigration. He of course contributed to the expansion of the state in other ways though, by tying spending into national security incessantly, but, the story of the federal government since 1860 has been one of ever increasing expansion so Ike is at least as guilty as everyone else on that score (and probably more innocent than Reagan).

I would put Truman and possible Nixon as worse than GW Bush.

Also, I tend to agree with Chris. Let's see how history judges GW Bush.

Yeah blah, Truman is in the running as a postwar pres even though he began as prez prior to the end of the war, right?

If so he definitely has to rank as worse than Bush and pretty close to LBJ.

HAHAHAHA!!!

Flynn, you polling yourself. Hilarious.

Iraqis? Uhh, the Iraq War is among the most succesful military operations in world history. It's been three and a half years and we have lost less troops than we lost on D-Day. We have completed every major objective, and have slain the enemy in a retio of 25 to 1. Iraqi civilians are five times less likely to die today than they were under Saddam, and you are more likely to be killed walking the streets of Washington D.C than you are walking the streets of Baghdad. You might disagree with the objectives of the Iraq War, or feel that there were better ways to attain those objectives, I would agree with you. But That hardly puts Bush in the top three worst presidents since WW2. He has also done some great stuff like banned partial birth abortion, put conservative judges on the Supreme Court and all over the circuit courts, cut taxes, and secured with India an alliance that will keep Red China from gaining access to the Persian Gulf.

His huge failures in my mind are his twin defecits and massive government largesse.

Hey Ben how about your mothers largesse?

What does every major objective mean? It's clear that it's the objective du jour in Iraq and everytime we claim success for one objective, a new one pops up. All to keep us there for some fuzzy goal of administration defined victory.

If we're there to claim a patch of strategic territory, let us be clear that that's our current objective and take it.

But to continue to make up reasons to be there without any apparent objective is ludicrous.

What will you say when Bush and boys drive us into Iran for another fuzzy 'objective'?

"Hey Ben how about your mothers largesse?" T-Neb

Wow. You should take that act on the road. Maybe hit up the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. They'd love your wit and witticism there.

"What does every major objective mean? It's clear that it's the objective du jour in Iraq and everytime we claim success for one objective, a new one pops up. All to keep us there for some fuzzy goal of administration defined victory." -asdf

I was wrong to use the term objective in the sense that I did, because I did not consider at the moment exactly how controversial the actual objectives of the Iraq War have been. I consider it to be, more or less, the following:

"Other possible U.S. objectives, denied by the U.S. government but acknowledged by Retired U.S. General Jay Garner, included the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq as a way of projecting power (creating a credible threat of U.S. military intervention) to the oil-rich Gulf region and the Middle East generally. Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction in Iraq, explained that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was comparable to the Philippine model: "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East" -Wiki

Now you would probably disagree with these objectives, as they see a long term US military presence as something desireable to be achieved, whereas you see it as something undesierable to be avoided. That's why I said that you might certainly disagree with the objectives, but I feel that the objectives, for what they are, have been met admirably.

The other objectives of course include overturning the government of Saddam Hussein, turning sovereignty over to the new government, and training Iraq's new military, two of which have been achieved, and the third of which is going quite well.

"If we're there to claim a patch of strategic territory, let us be clear that that's our current objective and take it." -asdf

I agree with you there. Of course, being clear is not what politicians do.

"But to continue to make up reasons to be there without any apparent objective is ludicrous." -asdf

I agree again.

"What will you say when Bush and boys drive us into Iran for another fuzzy 'objective'?" -asdf

Right now I would be very surprised if we bombed Iran in the immediate future. Within the administration the more militaristic and hardline Cheney faction has taken a heavy beating from the Rice-Bolton faction, which is much more given to diplomacy, as you have probably seen in the news as of late, with the US putting out offers for talks. If Iran really pushes us we may bomb them, but I feel that bombing has been moved off the list of desired outcomes.

An actual invasion of Iran I cannot see happening under any circumstances.

I don't necessarily disagree with those objectives and I don't think that the American public would either. As long as people understood the real reasons that we're spending a fortune in capitol and blood, maybe some could rationalize and justify the ends.

But, for our government to continue to insult our collective intelligence by floating the concept that we're over there to help the Iraqi people be free and live under a democratic government is ridiculous. It's clear that our government couldn't give a crap either way and there is more to this mission than just free elections and the fight against terrorism.

If we are really over there to establish a presence, let's delineate our territory and prepare to defend it. Continuous full scale guerilla warfare will not accomplish anything or help to work toward that goal.

3 worst: W, LBJ, Nixon
3 best: Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush I