PDA

View Full Version : Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey



LaoSexMachine
02-16-2009, 08:01 PM
Lincoln wins: Honest Abe tops new presidential survey



Story Highlights
65 historians ranked former presidents on various leadership qualities
Abraham Lincoln ranked highest, as he did in similar survey done in 2000
James Buchanan, who watched as nation lurched toward civil war, came in last
George W. Bush ranks 36th among the 42 former presidents

(CNN) -- It's been 145 years since Abraham Lincoln appeared on a ballot, but admiration for the man who saved the union and sparked the end of slavery is as strong as ever, according to a new survey.
Lincoln finished first in a ranking by historians of the 42 former White House occupants. The survey was released over Presidents Day weekend.
The news wasn't quite as good for the latest addition to the nation's most exclusive fraternity: George W. Bush finished 36th in the survey, narrowly edging out the likes of historical also-rans Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce.
James Buchanan -- the man who watched helplessly as the nation lurched toward civil war in the 1850s -- finished last.
"As much as is possible, we created a poll that was non-partisan, judicious and fair-minded," said Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley, who helped organize the survey of 65 historians for cable television network C-SPAN.
The survey -- which asked participants to rank each president on 10 qualities of leadership ranging from public persuasion and economic management to international relations and moral authority -- was the network's second since 2000. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/interactive.gifSee which presidents ranked highest and lowest » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Lincoln+wins%3A+Honest+Abe+tops+new+presidential+survey+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=34233661&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2009%2FPOLITICS%2F02%2F16%2Fpresidential.survey%2Findex.html&partnerID=211911#cnnSTCOther1)
The hero of Springfield, Illinois, finished first nine years ago as well.
"It's fitting that for the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Abraham_Lincoln) that he remains at the top of these presidential rankings," Brinkley said.
"Lincoln continues to rank at the top in all categories because he is perceived to embody the nation's avowed core values: integrity, moderation, persistence in the pursuit of honorable goals, respect for human rights, compassion," Howard University's Edna Medford added.
Founding father George Washington (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_Washington) finished second in the new survey, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Franklin_D_Roosevelt), Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order.
Bill Clinton registered the greatest gain among recent presidents, jumping from 21st to 15th in the survey. Ronald Reagan edged forward from 11th to 10th overall, while George H.W. Bush moved up from 20th to 18th.
The prize for the greatest jump in approval from historians over the last nine years, however, went to a president who has often sat near the bottom of such rankings: Ulysses S. Grant. The Civil War general jumped 10 notches, from 33rd to 23rd.
Grant has traditionally received poor marks for corruption among people in his administration and the failed postwar reconstruction effort he presided over. But the nation's 18th president may be getting a bounce from all of the recent attention focused on Lincoln, Medford said.
"Grant won the war for Lincoln," she noted during an appearance on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal." "A new look at the totality of his career may be improving his presidential stature," she said.
"Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence -- until now," historian Richard Norton Smith said. "Participants in the latest [survey] have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."
In his final news conference before stepping down last month, George W. Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_Washington) made it clear he wasn't concerned with poor initial judgments of his presidency.
"There is no such thing as short-term history," Bush said. "I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed."
The survey's participants ranked Bush 41st on international relations and 40th on economic management -- ahead of only Herbert Hoover.
[/URL]
http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif

Find this article at:
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_W_Bush)

Limeyfellow
02-16-2009, 09:41 PM
What surprised me was how low Jefferson ranked. I think he was a far better president than the likes of Washington but he gets screwed over every time in these rankings.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-16-2009, 09:55 PM
That's remarkable considering how much they hated him during his time in office. He was regarded by many as a tyrant - occupying homes, suspending habeas corpus, jailing local officials who disagreed with him etc. Are people unaware of how he did what he did? Or do they think the end justified the means? So shouldn't that still apply or was that only for olden times? Very odd of you ax me.

commanding
02-16-2009, 10:00 PM
if you want a wakeup call on what a racist Lincoln was, go to this webpage and read page 206 (bottom)-207 (top), here is link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zNdj8Lz4VJYC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22There+is+a+physical+difference+between+white+and+black+races+which+will+forever%22&source=web&ots=oY0ErBA1UO&sig=izPD3X3AggRQizsdVrV3CZS0G_0&hl=en&ei=iiaaSequNJC8Mtm_4IAM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA207,M1


Lincoln said that many times in the 1858 period. By todays standards he was a racist.

LaoSexMachine
02-16-2009, 10:24 PM
That's remarkable considering how much they hated him during his time in office. He was regarded by many as a tyrant - occupying homes, suspending habeas corpus, jailing local officials who disagreed with him etc. Are people unaware of how he did what he did? Or do they think the end justified the means? So shouldn't that still apply or was that only for olden times? Very odd of you ax me.

No shyt. It's funny how some people these days demonize Bush. Lincoln is the closet America had to a dictator.

Lusitania
02-16-2009, 11:21 PM
That's remarkable considering how much they hated him during his time in office. He was regarded by many as a tyrant - occupying homes, suspending habeas corpus, jailing local officials who disagreed with him etc. Are people unaware of how he did what he did? Or do they think the end justified the means? So shouldn't that still apply or was that only for olden times? Very odd of you ax me.

Lincoln's is always a strange case because if they declared war on the Confederacy, much of what he did would have been legal (of course some of his actions cannot be supported, even with war powers). On that same token, by declaring war on the Confederacy, the Union risked recognizing the Confederate States of America as a country (which the Union feared could complicate matters with Europe). In scope then, Lincoln took on the war powers of the president, without having Congress actually declare war. The latter is illegal, but thrust into such a situation as he was, it was perhaps a necessary evil for victory, or perhaps not, but it is hard to say for sure.

ayanami_tard
02-17-2009, 05:50 AM
george washington?

nothing about him?

ZARDOZ
02-17-2009, 10:22 AM
Just goes to show you how "the victors write the histories". Yes, Lincoln can be given credit for "saving the union" but at what price? He was the most tyannical president we ever had.

The founding fathers faced much higher obstacles and built the foundations for one of the greatest countries ever. To bad the quality of leadership these days (and I am talking both sides of the aisles, going back 40 years) has let these great men down and now even our schools systems do not teach history to a point where the primates can take an informed survey.

Taxation without representation indeed...

Here is one for ya, if they put Benjamin Franklin on the survey (as a test) where would he come in? I can see it now, "Hey, he is one of them old dead dudes on my favorite green piece of paper. I am voting for him!!"

2Sheds_Jackson
02-17-2009, 04:50 PM
From what I've read about him, Franklin was too smart and too busy having fun to want the job.

Breakfast in Vegas
02-17-2009, 04:54 PM
From what I've read about him, Franklin was too smart and too busy having fun to want the job.x2. A real skirt*-chaser from what they say.


* or whatever the femmes were wearing back in the day.

Rictor
02-17-2009, 06:39 PM
That's remarkable considering how much they hated him during his time in office. He was regarded by many as a tyrant - occupying homes, suspending habeas corpus, jailing local officials who disagreed with him etc. Are people unaware of how he did what he did? Or do they think the end justified the means? So shouldn't that still apply or was that only for olden times? Very odd of you ax me.

I may have missed the news in my most recent bout of apathy, but has half the country seceded, amassed it own army, issued its own currency etc? No? Then we're not really talking about the same circumstances at all.

Yes, Lincoln was a tyrannt. No, he should not have won this poll, even though it is utterly meaningless. But the context of his actions is not even remotely similar to those faced by Bush. Passing draconian measures to preserve the nation as it is violently being ripped apart (even though Constitutionally it had ever right to be ripped apart bla bla) is not the same as passing said measures to keep the Secret Jihadi Brotherhood from planting a billion nucular weapons in children's playground because....uh, this one guy said they would.

(Un)fortunately, people don't really have the same wonderfully effective ways of deposing dictators now as they did then.

ViktorNavorski
02-18-2009, 03:30 AM
I may have missed the news in my most recent bout of apathy, but has half the country seceded, amassed it own army, issued its own currency etc? No? Then we're not really talking about the same circumstances at all.

Yes, Lincoln was a tyrannt. No, he should not have won this poll, even though it is utterly meaningless. But the context of his actions is not even remotely similar to those faced by Bush. Passing draconian measures to preserve the nation as it is violently being ripped apart (even though Constitutionally it had ever right to be ripped apart bla bla) is not the same as passing said measures to keep the Secret Jihadi Brotherhood from planting a billion nucular weapons in children's playground because....uh, this one guy said they would.

(Un)fortunately, people don't really have the same wonderfully effective ways of deposing dictators now as they did then.Well, that's settle it, World War II didn't happen.

Gat0r
02-18-2009, 07:22 PM
Looks like the government brainwashing in our schools is working, and we're seeing both statist parties glorify that tyrant no wonder most people think he was a great guy, Thomas J. Dilorenzo's two books on Abe might convince people who he really was.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-18-2009, 09:49 PM
I may have missed the news in my most recent bout of apathy, but has half the country seceded, amassed it own army, issued its own currency etc? No? Then we're not really talking about the same circumstances at all.

Yes, Lincoln was a tyrannt. No, he should not have won this poll, even though it is utterly meaningless. But the context of his actions is not even remotely similar to those faced by Bush. Passing draconian measures to preserve the nation as it is violently being ripped apart (even though Constitutionally it had ever right to be ripped apart bla bla) is not the same as passing said measures to keep the Secret Jihadi Brotherhood from planting a billion nucular weapons in children's playground because....uh, this one guy said they would.

(Un)fortunately, people don't really have the same wonderfully effective ways of deposing dictators now as they did then.

Bush never approached the level of "tyranny" that Lincoln was (and is) accused of. Were Americans today faced with a Lincoln in the White House, prosecuting any American war, they would likely immediately impeach him, or worse...assuming of course that they still retained that power after he worked his magic.

Then it seems quite odd that Lincoln isn't just respected, isn't just highly regarded, but literally lands at the very top of the list of most loved presidents. At the time, he was absolutely reviled, hated - called incompetent and criminal - there were riots in New York and Boston- far, far beyond any pushback that Bush ever experienced. Christ, they friggin' shot him even after the war was over. Not so surprising, considering that Bush got about 356,000 fewer of his soldiers killed...or about 600,000 fewer Americans total killed. Bush became the embodiment of Satan himself way back around 1000 or so.

I simply wonder how it is that the average thinking American is able to square the two. Which of their views is based on absolute fantasy - their view of Bush, or their view of Lincoln, or both? Do they believe that it was appropriate for the average American to bear those burdens that Lincoln imposed- to live under those curtailed freedoms - only back then? And that now, we no longer need to sacrifice anything at all - not even culturally sensitive meals- in order to win. It's really kind of funny when you think about it, but then I'm convinced that most people don't think about it.