Bambi and the left look like socialist ducks, walk like socialist ducks and quack like socialist ducks–they’re socialist ducks. And if anyone can’t see that, then they’re either incredibly naive or foolish.
Matt Helm on February 16, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Too bad you refuse to acknowledge what a “socialist duck” really looks, walks and sounds like. I suggest you look up the term. In the meantime I’m sure you’ll keep shoveling that crap. Only your shrinking base believes it.

“As for firing on Fort Sumter you are right and wrong. The South did not fire the first shot at the fort but at a steamer called “the Star of the West”.”

Proof?

“After Lincoln got into office he told the South that “no attempt would be made to relive, or re-supply the fort.” This was a flat out lie”

So, if the garrison of Fort Sumter had exausted their rations and were starving to death in there, Lincoln would have been obliged to LET THEM?

“as Lincoln had amassed a fleet of war ships to not only to increase the garrison at the fort, but the shell the city!”

Which is demonstrated by the paltry cannon count amongst them, which was vastly understrength for a unit HALF ITS SIZE. The fact is that they carried less cannon then was routine, and only enough to defend themselves- and poorly at that. The fact is that you cannot “shell” ANYTHING with 30 cannons amongst almost as many ships.

“The governor relayed this info to Jefferson Davis who gave the order for Beauregard to take the fort before the fleet arrived!”

So, you ADMIT that the CSA attacked first, do you not? Just what I thought.

“Fortunately for Lincoln the fleet was held up in a storm, and never made it to Fort Sumter!”

Fortunate because they were so poorly defended that they almost certainly would have been seized without difficulty by the Confederates, NOT because they were going to commit an act of war.

“It was Lincoln who maneuvered the South into firing the first shot, because Lincoln wanted war!”

Perhaps he did, but the fact remains that the South chose to attack, the South chose to secede, and the South chose to fabricate an event to justify their aggression.

And that is due cause for war.

“Wow, FDR that high in the list? Why?”

Probably for his ability to discern the Axis threat VERY early and to take extremely unpopular but very necessary steps to combat it? Perhaps because he broke his populist mainstray and actually resisted a dillution of the effort against Hitler in favor of satisfying but strategicaqlly foolish “revenge” against Japan? Perhaps because he- on the whole- managed to rise above his mistakes and lead an unprepared and underarmed US into war and win it?

I’m not doubting the man made collosal screw-ups or that his rascism and character flaws mar the view. But blame and credit must both be paid when due. And, with FDR, the credit is VERY MUCH due.

“I’m getting tired of how hyped Lincoln is.”

True, but your foolish and moronic “reasons” differ greatly from mine.

“Uh… the Rebs would have done that eventually anyway. Other than that…”

Proof? Magic 8 Ball? Extremely accurate Psychic? How do you know the South would not have turned into some Apartheid-esque nightmare like South Africa was in the 80′s- not as oppressive as it seemed, but certainly far from liberating- while retaining bondage? Yes, there were many influential Confederates that favored abolition. But even more OPPOSED it. So, how can you possibly now how an unwritten future would turn out?

You CAN’T.

“Well, he rose an army and invaded his own nation.”

DAMN THAT WASHINGTON FOR MISTREATING THOSE CAPTURED DURING THE WHISKEY REBELLION!

The fact is that it was the CSA who initiated the war, the CSA who broke away from the Union, and the CSA who were willing to bombard Fort Sumter in order to break away. In addition, how conveniently you forget that the Confederates invaded the North several times and did as much per capita damage as Sherman and Grant ever did. The fact is that the President is granted the powers to ensure that the Federal government’s will is carried out- as demonstrated during the Whiskey Rebellion- and the CSA’s decision to break away meant that Lincoln had little choice to crush them or face a constant tumor in the South that could be manipulated by outside powers against the Union.

“He was responsible, ultimately, for nice places like Andersonville.”

You DO realize that Andersonville was a CONFEDERATE camp, right? And remind me again how much control Lincoln had over the Confederates and what THEY did? If you wanted to pick out “hellish POW camps of the war” you should have mentioned Detroit, where a case CAN actually be made that Lincoln was responsible for what happened.

That being said, you fail to notice that the “war guilt” ultimately falls to the Confederacy for starting the war with Fort Sumter then with the Union. A strange omission you and “Confederate” seem to make.

“Not to mentiont that he (a lawyer) chose to violate the habeas corpus.”

And, as history has shown, great crises demand great measures. It is rightfully infamous, and he probably abused it more then we realize, but he never intended it to be permanent or to do much more then to win the war.

“Hmm, great man indeed.”

Yes indeed, though I doubt in the way you mention.

“Oh, not to mention fighting a war without approval of congress.”

I doubt Beauregard and the CSA waited for the approval of the Confederate Congress before bombing the hell out of Fort Sumter. When one is attacked, you attack back, you don’t wait until you can assemble a few dozen people to officially notice you are being attacked.

“Hey Abe, how does it feel having the blood of 600,000 of your own countrymen on your hands?”

I don’t know. Perhaps your idiotic inquiries (and those of Confederate, for that matter) may be better directed at Davis, Beauregard, and John Brown?

Fools.

It was Lincoln who maneuvered the South into firing the first shot, because Lincoln wanted war!

Confederate on February 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Yes, the South’s suspicious of Lincoln had been heightened about Ft. Sumter because the CSA had formed and elected Davis, had called for the Union Capt Anderson to evacuate the fort, he had agreed to do so once his supplies had been exhausted. The attempt to resupply the fort was a signal to the South that their had been lied to. Anderson had also been seen in Charleston purchasing supplies for the fort which only add to they suspicion that Lincoln was not trustworthy.

Lincoln had been advised that a show of force by the Union would put an end to the foolishness of secession but needed a casus belli so he did not look to be the aggressor and the South was standing on the edge willing to jump.

I highly recommend “Marching Through Culpeper, A Novel of Culpeper, Virginia” for anyone who is interested in historical novels about the Civil War. It is an excellent read and is very well documented.

I’ll grant you that Lincoln probably gets a lot of credit from historians for his unquestionable eloquence rather than his actual gifts as President. But there is no way he could possibly have negotiated a peace with the South, which had already attacked Fort Sumter before Lincoln could even be inaugurated.

-
Sorry Tom, but Lincoln NEVER tried to “negotiate a piece” with the South in any since of the word. In fact the state of Virginia (before they voted to leave the Union) arranged piece comities from the 7 seceded states. Lincoln flat out REFUSED to see them!
-

As for firing on Fort Sumter you are right and wrong. The South did not fire the first shot at the fort but at a steamer called “the Star of the West”. Yes this was before Lincoln got into office. After Lincoln got into office he told the South that “no attempt would be made to relive, or re-supply the fort.” This was a flat out lie; as Lincoln had amassed a fleet of war ships to not only to increase the garrison at the fort, but the shell the city! Lincoln than had his people send a telegram to the governor of South Carolina stating that this fleet was on its’ way. The governor relayed this info to Jefferson Davis who gave the order for Beauregard to take the fort before the fleet arrived! Fortunately for Lincoln the fleet was held up in a storm, and never made it to Fort Sumter! It was Lincoln who maneuvered the South into firing the first shot, because Lincoln wanted war!

What’s even worse is when people who call themselves Christians overlook/downplay slavery in our Nation’s history. Remember Matthew 25:33-40, esp. v. 40 itself? The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ I guess if no slave had been a Christian, slavery wouldn’t have been quite as offensive as it was to the Christians then, eh?

At least John Brown cared enough about the issue to give up his life for it; his heart was in the right spot, if not his head. Too bad we’ll never know if the US could have ended slavery as peacefully as the Western European powers somehow managed to do in the Western Hemisphere (Haiti may be considered an exception), thanks to…

Lincoln? No one who is a 2nd Amendment absolutist could seriously support the guy. For what purpose did the 2nd Amendment exist, could someone remind me? Could someone tell which of the other 10 Amendments he didn’t violate as he strove to ‘save the Constitution’? I am having a little trouble finding one.

Clinton deserves to own the lowest position on any similar list, unless being a traitor to your country stops being an issue for consideration.

You would think that a panel of so-called historians would have a better appreciation for historical perspective.

JFK should be below Reagan definitely and WAAAAY below Jefferson. Something about Jefferson writing a document or two.

And Lincoln… gah… I’m getting tired of how hyped Lincoln is. Oh yes, he freed the slaves. Uh… the Rebs would have done that eventually anyway. Other than that… Well, he rose an army and invaded his own nation. He was responsible, ultimately, for nice places like Andersonville. Not to mentiont that he (a lawyer) chose to violate the habeas corpus. Hmm, great man indeed. Oh, not to mention fighting a war without approval of congress. Hey Abe, how does it feel having the blood of 600,000 of your own countrymen on your hands?

Lincoln is like Stauffenberg in Germany. Overly and unjustly hyped. St. Lincoln and St. Stauffenberg.

Spirit of 1776 on February 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Understood. Not shooting, just commenting on how irregular technical advance can worsen the human condition.

Would it be crazy to put Richard Nixon at #7?

joe_doufu on February 17, 2009 at 2:49 AM

It depends on how you view exiting Vietnam and opening China (which was certainly a mixed bag).

OK that’s all I’ve got. I think it’s hard not to be a popularity contest, because quite frankly who besides remembers the less-famous 18th-century Presidents? Furthermore, I know that I’m evaluating a lot of these men on their lives and characters more than their Presidencies — especially Madison, Jefferson, and TR, who were great Americans but whose Presidencies I really don’t know much about.

Would it be crazy to put Richard Nixon at #7?

Alright, I just have to say a few things:

The over-adoration of Coolidge is getting tiring. Half the reason he is even viewed as well as he is is because he didn’t really DO ANYTHING. The ecconomic boom cannot be attributed to him, but to the ending of WWI and the US’ role in piecing Europe back together.

While his actions in the foreign arena were solid when they happened (for instance, maintaining intercourse with the LoN and its children without subverting American independence) it is more telling what he DIDN’T do. The bottom line is that he- like Wilson- was a head-in-the-sand idealist who thought that human conflict had ended with the fortunate collapse of the Kaiserreich- which was not true, by the way.

Ultimately, he was lucky to have what amounted to an “easy” period of history to work with, and I HIGHLY doubt that he could have weathered WWI, WWII, or the Cold War intact.

Certainly not deserving to be in the top 10, but perhaps in the 20′s or so, with Wilson. The man may have been competent, but he was not a great, and to rate him above Washington, Lincoln, Teddy, Truman, or FDR (yes, I said FDR, so bite me) shows how disconnected one is with the political realities of modern history.

Which brings me on to the next point: FDR.

Yes, we know DAMN well that FDR’s “New Deal” lengthened the depression, enlarged the government to the corrupt and ineffective behemoth it is today, and has fathered monstrosities like the current stimulus bill, while he himself was highly autocratic, somewhat racist, and detatched.

That being said, one has to look at the pluses as well as the negatives, and here is where he shines. For all his flaws, FDR DID realize that the US could not remain isolated as Wilson and Coolidge had hoped. He wanted it to, but he was forced to realize it could not. And so he choose to aid China in the Pacific and the Anglo-French and their exiled allies in Europe and Africa against the enemies he KNEW were out there and poseda dire threat to American interests and to its very existence as a nation that could justifiably be called free and independent.

And, while you may seem to wave this off, you must consider that this was a CONSIDERABLE political gamble for him. In order to do it, FDR had to alienate a not inconsiderable amount of the public support he so fanatically attempted to cultivate while at the same time realizing it could backfire disasterously on him. Why did he do it? Because he realized that he was kindered to the Western Allies and that Germany and Japan had to be weakened or destroyed to ensure American freedom. And he nearly paid for it as well, as more then a few dodged attempts to kick him out show (while it never got as far as an impeachment, it was certainly talked about, and a few botched assassination attempts should give a hint that FDR took flak for that, HARD).

In addition, when war actually DID come, he likely helped change the course of history for the good by strongly resisting the temptation to lash at Japan while leaving the Germans free to attack Britain- something that the majority of his constituants did not think of.

As for Yalta, all I can say is that he should have taken a stronger line period, but other then that, I can hardly see what more he could have done about the situation. The fact was that all the territory we “gave” them they had ALREADY TAKEN. And does ANYBODY think that a Western Allied demand for them to “get out” of all their conquests- or even a quarter of them- would be followed?

Barring that, we only have one option to force a Soviet “withdrawal” from Eastern Europe: by grabbing our guns and blasting them out.

And while many would be partial to that, remember that the Soviets far outnumbered, outgunned, and matched us in pretty much every numerical statistic relevant to war. Sure, we were better trained and (on the whole) equipped, but it would have been nasty.

And this is without taking into account that the extent of Soviet duplicity and hostility was only discovered in 1945- AFTER FDR had died- and you can see why such a move would have been unlikely. Bluntly, FDR- while certainly imperfect- did the only truly realistic thing that he could have done save for pushing the Soviets a bit harder regarding the Balkans, Germany, and Austria. But hindsight IS 20/20, and FDR’s ability to lead and learn during his wartime tenure EASILY trumps even his horrific mishandling of the Depression, and I SINCERELY doubt that Coolindge would have been fit to take his place in that crisis.

Easily in the top 10, after Lincoln, Washington, Truman, and Reagan.

Wilson: Yes, the man was an idealistic, naive, hypocritical, racist, diplomatic idiot. But he was far from the worse we have ever had. The complaints about his “oppression” are transparently thin when you consider what LINCOLN did, and why nobody insults HIM if they wish to be taken seriously at ALL. And one thing that people overlook with Wilson and WWI is that he was NOT a Fascist (contrary to what Mr. Goldberg in his otherwise decent book may think), and that there is a broad gulf between the statist but Democracy-loving Wilson and the Fascist regimes to pop up later: key amongst them the fact that Wilson’s “Emergency Powers” were actually MEANT TO BE REPEALED!

In addition, another thing people overlook when thinking about his heavy-handed largess in attacking dissidents and potential spies while churning out a war machine of vast size is that NOBODY THOUGHT THE WAR WOULD END IN 1918 AT THE TIME! The most likely scenario would have forced the Germans out of Belgium, Luxembourg, and their territories on the Western Bank of the Rhine by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. However, the reinforcements in a year or two from Eastern Europe- coupled with the problems of crossing the Rhine River in force (you think the Western Allies had trouble in WWII? Imagine what this would have been like thirty years earlier, with unreliable armor, no paratroops, small airforces, and relatively slow ground forces!). In addition, the German military dictatorship’s attempts to institute an apocalyptic Endkampf would have caused considerable suffering and would have forced us to drive all the way to Berlin- and possibly further if their conquests in the East continued to resist. In other words, Wilson was not preparing for a one-year war, but two or three year one with subsidary conflicts in Latin America and a potential conflict with the Bolsheviks. Such a feat would have REQUIRED a strong hand to cut off anything that would interfere with such preparations, and even more if an occupation of Germany would have caused conflict with Lenin.

In short, welcome to wartime desperation. Nasty? Yes. Caused by a highly-flawed man? Absolutely. Necessary to root out an evil far more oppressive then anything Wilson tried to do? Certainly.

Such idiotic circle-jerk actions are something I would expect from the rabid Left, not from you. It is a pity so few study history any more.

They could learn quite a bit.

Ok then, one more thing you need to know. Marxism is anti capitalism and anti freedom. There. And yes, I will repeat the obvious until the socialist, marxist, liberal pap smears wake the hell up and reject idiots like the sock puppet permanently.

Spiritk9 on February 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM

I had an interesting experience the other night. We were at dinner and the group at the other table was loud but interesting. They were talking about a visit they made to Cold War Moscow.. How decrepit everything was. Proof that their room was bugged. Getting film and cameras confiscated at Bayonette point, horrible food and gloomy people.

I think the problem is that not very many people have been to a communist/socialist country to see how dead their lives are.

Idiots sell the ‘glories of socialism’ and idioticus americanus buys it hook line and sinker. It is deceit pure and simple.

echnopeasant on February 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM

If you’ll check, you’ll find that I put a couple of your names in my top-ten list: Polk and McKinley. I neglected Coolidge, but you make a strong case for him. Jackson I put in the “Honorable Mentions” category in that he is a controversial figure. Yes, there was his handling of the Nullification Crisis, but that’s countered by his actions with the Trail of Tears and the Bank War which brought about the economic collapse and depression of 1837. Regardless, he was most definitely a decisive man and a leader. While Monroe did issue the Monroe Doctrine, really John Quincy Adams’ brainchild, it took the Royal Navy to enforce it until the turn of the century, so I can’t really justify putting Monroe on a top ten list.

Matt Helm on February 16, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Exceptional points and strong, reasoned arguments to illustrate your positions. Thanks, Matt!

Matt Helm responded:
Bambi and the left look like socialist ducks, walk like socialist ducks and quack like socialist ducks–they’re socialist ducks. And if anyone can’t see that, then they’re either incredibly naive or foolish.

———————–
It’s really simple. Sock puppet obambi already publicly whined that the conservatives won’t fall in line with his economic hero KEYNES. Keynesian economics IS the foundation of socialism and only a hairs breadth from Marxism.

What more do you pudding brained liberals need to know?

Ok then, one more thing you need to know. Marxism is anti capitalism and anti freedom. There. And yes, I will repeat the obvious until the socialist, marxist, liberal pap smears wake the hell up and reject idiots like the sock puppet permanently.

How is it being “president for life” if you keep getting voted in?

AlwaysProgressive on February 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM”

It is when you increase the size of gov’t then threaten them all to vote for you or there will be “consequences” for one. But, to a putrid (read: average) liberal that’s a normal kind of marxist thing to do.

Keep claiming the left wants socialism, that Obama is creating socialism, over and over, and the weak-minded will believe it, but it’s still crap.

Constantine on February 16, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Bambi and the left look like socialist ducks, walk like socialist ducks and quack like socialist ducks–they’re socialist ducks. And if anyone can’t see that, then they’re either incredibly naive or foolish.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1981, Ronald Reagan’s first year in office, the U.S. average unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent.

Damning.

But you’re deflecting here because you do not want to admit that socialism is a failed system. AS I said it does not work. It can never bring long term prosperity–at best it only brings short term gratification.

I’m not arguing in favor of socialism, and I never have. That’s simply become the conservative rallying cry since they’ve lost two branches of government. Keep claiming the left wants socialism, that Obama is creating socialism, over and over, and the weak-minded will believe it, but it’s still crap.

I think this list is top-heavy with media favorites rather than a serious look at the accomplishments of each President.

Close… I would say it is top-heavy with the favorites of under-achieving 4rd-graders. What’s the difference, you ask… easy, 4th-graders are beginning to understand the roles of the three branches of the US Government!

A perfect illustration of how the media dumbs-down America, while claiming to inform it!