Comments on: Great Presidents: Where Have They Gone?

By: Delmartian

Delmartian — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:07:47 +0000

Lou … not sure where you get your info. First, I’m from California, but can tell you most New Englanders are staunch Democrats and big supporters of President Clinton.

Secondly, Kennedy inherited the Cold War foreign policy of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Eisenhower began sending advisers to Vietnam in support of his “buddy” Ngo Dinh Diem, who formed the new Republic of Vietnam and named himself President in 1955, with the support of Eisenhower.

And, lastly, the “official” escalation of the war started January 31, 1965, when President Johnson mobilized the 18th TAC Fighter Squadron from Okinawa to DaNang AFB.

Kennedy my have increased advisers to Nam when he inherited the mess, but make no mistake, this was a Johnson-Nixon war.

By: lou costello

lou costello — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:57:53 +0000

how come everyone in new england is outraged by clinton’s indescretions but so readily accept those of all three kennedy brothers. and as far as history class, history is already treating johnson better than kennedy, remember viet nam was kennedy’s war. and kennedy was stealing elections (west virginia primary) way before the bush family.

By: Delmartian

Delmartian — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:19:58 +0000

Hey Lou… your “smoke and mirrors” comment is way off-base. Kennedy’s Civil Rights Bill alone was a major accomplishment, not to mention his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis — and his push to develop the space program, which was the launching pad for the technology of today. Also, less we forget the Peace Corps and his overall presence and the good will he brought to the free world.

In retrospect, his accomplishments in less than one term were remarkable - and those of which many president would love to have on their resumes.

By: Delmartian

Delmartian — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:12:32 +0000

Hey “Lou” … where we you in your history class? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bill introduced by President Kennedy. He introduced it in his civil rights speech on June 11, 1963. LBJ was the one who got to sign it when it was passed on February 10, 1964 after the death of JFK.

But, your right…Nixon was an ass who led us deeper into a war he knew we couldn’t win. And a balanced budget doesn’t make a great president.

By: GZguy

GZguy — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:41:20 +0000

Trust “Bostonian” to sway from the theme of the Blog and provide his typical conservative comment. It’s not about Party-lines, it’s about great presidents.

By: lou costello

lou costello — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:56:16 +0000

What’s right isn’t always popular and what’s popular isn’t always right. Don’t equate approval ratings with being a good president. History is showing that Kennedy wasn’t a great president. Probably not even a good one. He was smoke and mirrors whose legacy lies in the manner of his death. LBJ was unpopular because of the war, but his record on Civil Rights is unmatched. Nixon was an ass but a foreign policy genius, and Clinton for his flaws left us with a balanced budget. Our best and brightest no longer wish to play the political game. When the politicians split along party lines on something as stupid as Roger Clemens it’s obvious that the system is what’s broken. Until that system gets fixed you may not find another George Washington.

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:59:49 +0000

Of course in the case of Mitt Romney, no one would be able to find any slime on him at all, which, of course, was the fundamental reason the press did every other kind of hit job on him in the primaries. After all, the guy married his 10th grade sweetheart, and not even the Clintons team of private investigators could find even a whiff of infidelity. Getting back to your central thesis of a dearth of great presidents, in the first century of the republic, at least, the concept of public service was finite: one did his term, and then went back to private life.

By: GZguy

GZguy — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:12:06 +0000

Great presidents have certainly been far and few between in recent years. Maybe the intrusive media has something to do with qualified people wanting to get involved with politics these days. Let’s face it, many of our great presidents of the past couldn’t cope with today’s ruthless media either. If we had looked into the personal lives of the presidents in the 80% bracket listed, I’m sure today’s purists would be modified. Maybe we should all begin to realize that we’re electing a president and NOT a Pope.

By: Bostonian

Bostonian — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:43:19 +0000

“It has probably been that way since George Washington, but I just don’t remember it being so blatant.” I was making reference to this implied question, though I understand it was a rhetorical one. I am not making excuses; I am trying to convey that our nation’s choices for President would be vastly different if we had to READ our candidates’ words rather than see their “performances” on television.

By: Gil

Gil — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:36:35 +0000

Bostonian…I’m not sure where in the Blog a question about Washington exists. I am well aware he accepted the role of President reluctantly. I was just making a point that political rhetoric has existed long before my life began.

Also, don’t use television as an excuse for lack of greatness. Presidents have four to eight years to develop their legacy. None since Kennedy have done a great job doing so in the eyes of most Americans.