|
|
Post by jhar26 on May 28, 2008 11:17:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 28, 2008 12:21:06 GMT -5
LBJ made two very serious mistakes in his presidency.
One--he didn't exactly tell the truth about the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. And two--on the basis of that incident (which probably did happen, just not in the way everybody thinks it did [see McNamara's recounting of this in THE FOG OF WAR]), he made the miscalculation of sending troops into Vietnam. Those two mistakes really destroyed him.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on May 28, 2008 14:38:29 GMT -5
Lyndon B. Johnson. Vietnam - what a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertaxel on May 28, 2008 16:15:00 GMT -5
agree with the above, despite Carter's ineptitude.. JFK seems ever more noble in retrsopective..
|
|
|
|
Post by profblues on May 28, 2008 19:35:18 GMT -5
With Lyndon Johnson, I think too much emphasis is placed on the debacle of Viet Nam and his really important contributions are lost in the hatred.
Under LBJ, (a white Southerner btw) the Voting Rights Act was passed as well as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.
The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities were both passed as well as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with led to the advancement of Public Television. Federal money to public schools was also increased during his administration as well as the creation of Head Start.
Medicare for the elderly as well as Medicaid and the Food Stamp program were established as well as programs like VISTA and the Job Corps (the domestic version of the Peace Corps) both of these programs are well documented for their work and results in Appalachia during the sixties.
His War on poverty was being won during his administration even though the results were lost in the defeats of Viet Nam and tragically funding that went to pay for the war did funnel funds away from these programs. The Republicans have been trying to dismantle them ever since, which says alot in my book.
I'd take LBJ's domestic successes while fighting an increasingly unpopular and unwinable war over the sorry state of affairs the
Monkey-boy has gotten this country in while doing the same.
In my opinion Johnson was the best Democrat since Roosevelt, given Kennedy's shortened administration.
Clinton could have done much better, but he was too much of a centrist, and he spent the better part of his two terms having to play ball with a hostile Congress that had his nuts in a vise. The economy was sound but the only boats that were being lifted were the fat-cats at the top.
Carter got my vote as the most ineffective, though he's shown much improvement as a private citizen although I'm sure Ben would disagree strongly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on May 29, 2008 11:40:50 GMT -5
Very informative, Ron.  |
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 29, 2008 12:29:40 GMT -5
Quote by profblues:
In many ways, Carter may have been too nice and honest a man for the job...which I think is a sad reflection upon us as a nation. Certainly he has become one of our best ex-presidents, particularly with respect to Habitat For Humanity.
As for his dealings with Hamas--well, the way I look at it, if we're not able to deal with our adversaries in ways other than saber-rattling and bombs, we in America have no business policing the world and telling others how to run their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by arjan on May 29, 2008 15:39:37 GMT -5
No idea on this one. Don't know them well enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 7, 2008 20:11:52 GMT -5
Clinton. A Republican with a nice smile and a friendly aura and the word "Democrat" after his name.
JFK made mistakes but proved he could learn from them. LBJ at least did the civil rights act. Carter had good intentions (though some of his crap in the middle east was purely horrible) and was blamed for economic stuff that wasn't necessarily within his control.
But Clinton? NAFTA alone! Gads.
|
|
