Seriously? Obama Ranked Over Reagan??
This post originates from an email from B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) to Bruce (GayPatriot):
George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.
That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.
In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.
Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.
Clinton took office during a recovery and succeeded in bungling his first two years in office so badly that the Republican Congress elected in response to his failures helped prevent him from undoing the accomplishments of the Reagan era.
Yeah, he may rank higher than you or I would like, but not above Reagan and certainly not far above the middle of the pack.
Seems these historians put their political prejudices ahead of their historical judgment. I mean, Obama ahead of the Gipper. Give me a break. The economy has certainly not recovered. And we haven’t seen the economic turnaround of the like we saw in the 1980s.
And that W is low on the list suggests the scholars crafting the study harbor the animi (animuses?) of the other practitioners of their trade.
=============
Bruce’s additional comments:
And check out this absurd statement from the news article:
“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”
Oh give me a friggin’ break. Obama is probably the most elitist president (via education & upbringing) since the John F. Kennedy. This idea that he had no father makes him “non-elitist” is completely absurd. How many ordinary Americans do you know that grew up in three different countries, went to the best private schools there and then went on to Harvard? I credit his work ethic getting there, but I know ordinary people and Obama ain’t one of ‘em.
Is Professor Lonnstrom suggesting that because Obama is BLACK that he’s no elitist? Well, that’s just downright RAAAACIST!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Speaking as someone who has worked in academia for the past 7 years, I can guarantee you that these “scholars” are rabid socialists who pander to their own – hence their unvarnished admiration for SnObama.
It once again points out how far removed from reality the academic nitwits are from the mainstream of American society.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2010 @ 10:24 am - July 2, 2010
Those historians must love Big Government. By the economic facts, FDR was the worst President in U.S. history. Contrary to myth, his predecessor had applied Big Government policies to a recession, making it into a depression. FDR then intensified those incredibly misguided policies, and sure enough, dragged out the depression for 8 more years of agony.
Kind of reminds me of Bush-Obama. Contrary to myth, Bush was not a free-market guy; he cut taxes but in most other ways, he was Big Government. For example, he jacked up domestic / non-defense spending, causing $400 B annual deficits. So what does Obama do? Jack it up even more, intensify Big Government all around and run $1.5 trillion deficits. Obama is going to end up with results as bad as FDR’s.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2010 @ 10:24 am - July 2, 2010
And now we see the effects of “medical marijuana” use!!! I believe these folks are all vying for the anchor positions on the Hemp Network. What a joke these so called “scholars” are.
Comment by NebraskaPatriot — July 2, 2010 @ 10:35 am - July 2, 2010
I saw that headline and was shocked as well, but then as you look closer, it is the socialist world of academia that were asked. No surprise there…..
Comment by Leslie — July 2, 2010 @ 10:44 am - July 2, 2010
I’ll probably be crucified here for saying it, but I actually do think that Clinton was, on the whole, a good president.
At the very least, he was one of the few presidents of either party who cared about deficits.
Comment by NYAlly — July 2, 2010 @ 10:58 am - July 2, 2010
NYAlly, I don’t entirely disagree with you, but would never rank him above Reagan. Not even close. Reagan belongs in the top 10 (at least), Clinton maybe in the next 15 after that.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 2, 2010 @ 11:00 am - July 2, 2010
This same group of elite academics consistently rank Woodrow Wilson — an open fascist and racist who segregated the military — in the top 8.
Consider the source.
Comment by V the K — July 2, 2010 @ 11:42 am - July 2, 2010
Clinton “cared about deficits” because he was a man of no principles, bending to political realities imposed on him by “bond vigilantes” and a Republican Congress.
By contrast, Obama has a principle: make government as big as possible. Obama “cares about deficits” in the sense that he is a liar willing to say anything to protect his real agenda.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2010 @ 11:47 am - July 2, 2010
A president need only be ranked on how effective he was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the constitution, and on whether his policies and strategies contributed to peace, prosperity and liberty.
Comment by niall — July 2, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - July 2, 2010
Oh Please – give me a break. Communcate this President has no idea how to do that. And if the criteria is as Niall says, he does not qualify to be in the poll let alone rank above President Reagan. He is black muslim out to get us. I am convinced more and more every day.
Comment by PatriotMom — July 2, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - July 2, 2010
NYAlly -
Also agree, but can we PLEASE remember that Clinton only cared about deficits in June 1995 — AFTER the GOP ended 40 years of majority control of the US House of Representatives in Nov. 1994.
Comment by GayPatriot — July 2, 2010 @ 12:42 pm - July 2, 2010
How can you rate Obama Presidency when its not even halfway done? I don’t even understand that. What if there is a double dip recession that sets us back even more? How could you rate him that highly? Exactly what have been the great success of Obama? He definitely hasn’t restored our economic situation or brought the end to a major global threat…
Comment by darkeyedresolve — July 2, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - July 2, 2010
Being scholars, and a presidential ones at that, is no guarantee of impartiality. Being in academia, as Peter so correclty states ¨are rabid socilists.¨ If they were truly impartial they would know that the New Deal policies of FDR (just like Obama´s) are a failure. After 7 years into FDR´s presidency unemployment remained the same as the day he first took office. Unemployment was reduced by WWII. Youth were drafted and 4F´s women, and older men went to work in the defense plants. The scholars, if they aren´t depression era babies, are the offspring of such who think the WPA and the CCC is the greatest thing to come down the pike since popcorn.
Comment by Roberto — July 2, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - July 2, 2010
Clinton “cared about deficits” because he was a man of no principles, bending to political realities imposed on him by “bond vigilantes” and a Republican Congress.
Also agree, but can we PLEASE remember that Clinton only cared about deficits in June 1995 — AFTER the GOP ended 40 years of majority control of the US House of Representatives in Nov. 1994.
Actually, no. Clinton’s 1993 budget, as malinged by the right as it is for its tax increases, was nevertheless a bold plan to reduce the deficit immediately.
Meanwhile, Obama does nothing but whine about how he interited a bad situation while doing everything needed to make the problem worse.
Comment by NYAlly — July 2, 2010 @ 3:04 pm - July 2, 2010
Was it his work ethic that got him to Harvard?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 2, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - July 2, 2010
What do you expect? Academic elites are usually quite liberal and this survey shows nothing more than political bias in action. You can’t rate a president in comparison to others while they are still in office – regardless of their political affliation. Heck, I’d argue that it takes about 20 years after they leave office to really start examining their administration with a sober analysis. The political passion has to die down and their face has to be off the news, out of the papers, etc.
IMO, FDR isn’t the greatest but instead probably #3 after Lincoln and Washington. Reagan would be in the Top 10 along with Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower.
Comment by John — July 2, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - July 2, 2010
The real credit, is he isn’t first because anything less would be racist. I mean I’m sure these guys would have Obama on Rushmore already if they could. With quote under him saying if its bad bush did it, if its good I did it.
Comment by matt — July 2, 2010 @ 4:26 pm - July 2, 2010
All I can say is: Weird. Not even close to where I would put him.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - July 2, 2010
Obama was raised mostly by his grandmother. She was vice-president (and if I recall correctly later president) of the largest bank in Hawai’i. He went to one of the most expensive elite high schools there (Punahou), and with a performance so bad that he can’t allow his transcripts to be released. Then he went to very expensive colleges, again with a performance that he is ashamed or afraid to make public.
No average joe bag-a-donuts there.
Note: A disclaimer, I went to one of the other elite private schools, Kamehameha, and Punahou was our rival.
Comment by Kalroy — July 3, 2010 @ 12:34 am - July 3, 2010
So, once again, as with the Nobel, Obama is judged not on what he has actually accomplished or what kind of leader he has been but on his “intelligence” (which seems more questionable as the days go by) , his “ability to communicate” (So now, Ummms, Uhhhs, slurred mumbling & a growing inability to pronounce simple words correctly makes you a great communicator?) and his “imagination”, (by imagination do they mean his golf handicap?)
Clearly the list was made by people that have been comatose for the last few decades.
Comment by Kristie — July 3, 2010 @ 2:34 am - July 3, 2010
Who ever thinks that FDR was a great president did not live during the 30s. I did. I was born in 1922. As the Depression went on, more and more of my neighbors had to go on WPA which was an embarrressment to most of them. Also for those with children it did not pay enought to feed and clothes them. When Gone With the Wind came to out local theater, our principal excused those that had the 5 cents admission fee to go down town to see it. I and others did not have the 5 cents.
My father was an lumberman. He had large stacks of oak lumber which he couldn’t sell. That was until we go in WW2. The Navy was started to build ships in New Port News and then there was a big demand for the lumber.
Comment by John W — July 3, 2010 @ 2:48 am - July 3, 2010
I guess it is good that they shared the qualities that they think make Obama #15 out of 44 so that we might write off this group of scholars more easily. I would take issue with some of their observations about Obama. I’m sure he’s intellignet and he can read a telepromter quite convincingly, but he’s really not that imaginative. He can’t think of a single polciy by himself that hasn’t been tried and failed by past “progressives.” I mean what do they think makes a good imagination? Using the internet to campaign? I don’t think he thought of that first, and I’m pretty sure Al Gore thought up the Internet itself.
Also, it struck me that they mentioned that his family background dragged his score down. Are they saying he would be a better president if his father were around? Or if he had more white, wealthy, Christian relatives?
These rankings really are worthless.
Comment by jimmy — July 3, 2010 @ 4:15 am - July 3, 2010
That is astounding. So it’s gone up over 200 times!
Which is Keynesian / Democrat economics at work. The government having to build things is (supposedly) good. Never mind if they add nothing to human health or comfort. If mass earthquakes or riots devastated every city in the country, that would be “good” (in their view) for the economy, because people would want to rebuild and we can see how that would “stimulate” the economy. Never mind that it’s make-work, or really a tragedy that lessened most people’s wealth. Real economists (the Austrian / neo-classical school) call this type of thinking the Broken Window Fallacy.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 3, 2010 @ 5:25 am - July 3, 2010
ILC The 5 cent admission was for the students. The normal price for theater tickets at that time was 10 and 25cents. That was the late part of the 30s. In the late part of the 40s the price had already doubled.
Comment by John W — July 3, 2010 @ 2:56 pm - July 3, 2010
“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”
Two thoughts on this:
1) Why would liberals, who insist that there’s nothing wrong with single parenting and that families come in all shapes and sizes, say that a child was disadvantaged because they didn’t have a father?
2) If James Dobson said that a child was disadvantaged because they grew up without a father, liberals would have a screaming aneurysm of “homophobe” and “misogynist”.
In other words, this is epic hypocrisy on the part of liberals.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2010 @ 12:31 am - July 4, 2010