Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historians rank Reagan #8 among presidents
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 16, 2000

Posted on 06/10/2004 8:55:07 AM PDT by Cableguy

More than 3 years old, but still valid. Clinton should go down next time, given his failures on Al Qaeda and North Korea. Reagan will probably move up.

------------------ The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents

RANK NAME MEAN GREAT 1 George Washington 4.92 2 Abraham Lincoln 4.87 3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.67 NEAR GREAT 4 Thomas Jefferson 4.25 5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.22 6 Andrew Jackson 3.99 7 Harry Truman 3.95 8 Ronald Reagan 3.81 9 Dwight Eisenhower 3.71 10 James Polk 3.70 11 Woodrow Wilson 3.68 ABOVE AVERAGE 12 Grover Cleveland 3.36 13 John Adams 3.36 14 William McKinley 3.33 15 James Madison 3.29 16 James Monroe 3.27 17 Lyndon Johnson 3.21 18 John Kennedy 3.17 AVERAGE 19 William Taft 3.00 20 John Quincy Adams 2.93 21 George Bush 2.92 22 Rutherford Hayes 2.79 23 Martin Van Buren 2.77 24 William Clinton 2.77 25 Calvin Coolidge 2.71 26 Chester Arthur 2.71 BELOW AVERAGE 27 Benjamin Harrison 2.62 28 Gerald Ford 2.59 29 Herbert Hoover 2.53 30 Jimmy Carter 2.47 31 Zachary Taylor 2.40 32 Ulysses Grant 2.28 33 Richard Nixon 2.22 34 John Tyler 2.03 35 Millard Fillmore 1.91 FAILURE 36 Andrew Johnson 1.65 37 Franklin Pierce 1.58 38 Warren Harding 1.58 39 James Buchanan 1.33

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: reagan; ronaldreagan; topten; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-246 next last
To: bigeasy_70118

"And what the hell is Woodrow Wilson doing so high?"

Years ago either the American Specator or National Review had their own ranking of the Presidents. They had Wilson as a failure.


21 posted on 06/10/2004 9:05:01 AM PDT by KJacob (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bonaventure
Reagan needs to be ahead of Truman, but Truman was still a good president.

What exactly makes Jackson so great? Why do liberals like him?

Why is LBJ ranked so high? He needs to be dropped lower because despite the civil rights legislation he signed, he screwed the country up in everything else he did.

Why is Cal Coolidge ranked so low? By all accounts he had a quiet, but successful presidency.

Jimmy Carter needs to be ranked at the bottom.

22 posted on 06/10/2004 9:05:19 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Nixon, above average.
Clinton Failure.

These historian guys and girls are qualified by their own acclamation. We should make our own list up and get it published.


23 posted on 06/10/2004 9:06:02 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Half staff for President Reagan. Rest in peace, old friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

They should put him above FDR .... he defeated the Soviets who actually had a MUCH better chance of destroying this country than the Nazis


24 posted on 06/10/2004 9:06:05 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118
And what the hell is Woodrow Wilson doing so high?

With liberal historians intentions are what counts.

25 posted on 06/10/2004 9:06:52 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nuffsenuff

Clinton and Carter need to be bumped off.............Off the list of Presidents I mean..off the list of Presidents.

We need a special list for them:

Presidential wannabe's who were elected to the office, sit in the Oval office for one or two terms and left office
still just Presidential wannabes.


26 posted on 06/10/2004 9:07:24 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (So the Dems actually loved Reagan, huh? et tu, Bru-te ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog

And put Woodrow lower. I feel the pain of all rational Wilson's to wonder what got into him for the League of Nations. Perhaps the wife wrote that one while he was incapacitated.


27 posted on 06/10/2004 9:07:34 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Half staff for President Reagan. Rest in peace, old friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

FDR great? Not in my book. His socialist policies really did little to end the Great Depression and WWII was won on the strength of great commanders, fighting men, industry and grit, not the briliance of FDR. All he accomplished was to set this country on a path to Johnson's Great Society.


28 posted on 06/10/2004 9:07:41 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

Who/how do we FReep? How about a boycott?


29 posted on 06/10/2004 9:07:53 AM PDT by familyofman (laying in the dark, where the shadows run from themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

They are wrong about Harding. But, time runs out too soon for some.


30 posted on 06/10/2004 9:08:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

One can always quibble about rankings but this is actually an intelligent list. I was going to make some remark about there being some hope for the historians, but then I noticed the Federalist Society put the panel together.


31 posted on 06/10/2004 9:08:13 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
Eisenhower should be lower - they are including his military service as part of his presidency.

Frankly, I wouldn't rate Washington as a great President for precisely the same reason.

32 posted on 06/10/2004 9:08:32 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

Kennedy is too high.

Wilson is too high.

Teddy Roosevelt? Johnson?

John Adams is a bit low, IMHO. Nixon, despite Watergate, has a more positive legacy that he should receive more credit for. Hey, he met Elvis.

Clinton's where he belongs...in the forgotten middle.

Carter is WAY high. Buchanan still probably did more positive things while in office than he did.

33 posted on 06/10/2004 9:08:44 AM PDT by atomicpossum (I give up! Entropy, you win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

Theodore Roosevelt gave us our Panama Canal, a tremendous building feat and coup at that time in history, which brain dead Carter gave away. I would rank this president much higher and Carter much, much lower, not only because of the Panama Canal but because of everything else he mucked up. I would rank Carter and Clinton at the same level of zero.


34 posted on 06/10/2004 9:10:18 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

I think Truman belongs in the 2nd tier. Anyone with enough guts to use the a-bomb to save American lives deserve great respect. He was also tough against the Soviets. Truman is respected by most politicans, and even Bush quotes him sometimes.


35 posted on 06/10/2004 9:10:33 AM PDT by Cableguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Bill Clinton at average. Jimmy Carter at below average. Both should be well-embedded in FAILURE.

Actually they both should have another category: DISMAL FAILURE

36 posted on 06/10/2004 9:10:45 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
William Clinton = average? The average president gets impeached?

It's far too soon to give an objective answer on Clinton: in essence, the historians are having to predict into the future in order to assess his actions. My sense is that his ratings will go way down after there's been some time for the hype to shake out, and the true consequences of his presidency to become clear.

I think in terms of 9-11, and foreign matters in general, Clinton's legacy is already becoming clear, and he's headed to the failure column. In terms of domestic policy he was at best "average," and (because he was largely ineffective) probably closer to failure.

It's even somewhat early to judge Bush 41, but he will probably remain basically where he is.

37 posted on 06/10/2004 9:10:47 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

I think Nixon is way underrated. If the the truth be known, there probably would be a lot of watergate type scandals. Nixon's record places him above average.


38 posted on 06/10/2004 9:10:53 AM PDT by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

Truman and Wilson sucked, big time.


39 posted on 06/10/2004 9:12:09 AM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sawmill trash

"How did Klintoon stay out of the FAILURE column?"

It was already filled up before he got there.


40 posted on 06/10/2004 9:12:48 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (So the Dems actually loved Reagan, huh? et tu, Bru-te ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-246 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson