(Outside of Vietnam) Was LBJ a good President?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Outside of Vietnam, do you consider LBJ to be a good-great president? I'd say outside of Vietnam he's an A grade president, Vietnam drags him to a C grade.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Of course.

To be honest, I think if not for Vietnam he would've been as popular as FDR is and was. And LBJ never interred any American citizens based on their ethnicity as far as I know.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, he was a great liar and manipulator of the press who used tactics similar to Nixon but unlike him managed to keep the press on his side and was never held accountable.


Not to mention the fact that his policies did what Slavery and Segregation never could, destroy the African American family.

He was an F on all fronts and an F- on Vietnam which he both escalated and subsequently lost for the US.

[Bo]

Yes. Totally. He passed civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid, and some laws pertaining to education, consumer protection, and the environment. He has the greatest legislative record of any President between 1945 and 2009. That's quite an achievement. For Vietnam, he did screw up there, but I can understand why he made the decision to escalate the war back then. I mean, it's obviously easier to see things in hindsight than at the moment.

[Franzl]

Had his positive and negative sides....albeit more negative than positive.

[LBJ Revivalist]

No, he was a great liar and manipulator of the press who used tactics similar to Nixon but unlike him managed to keep the press on his side and was never held accountable.


Not to mention the fact that his policies did what Slavery and Segregation never could, destroy the African American family.

He was an F on all fronts and an F- on Vietnam which he both escalated and subsequently lost for the US.

Well you figure while he escalated over Vietnam he only presided over the war from 65-69 (as that's when the war went from just being military personnel to ground troops), Nixon and Ford had the war from 69-75 and presided over the middle and end of it and tried different strategies and still weren't able to win.

And I love that you basically say his policies were worse than segregation and slavery. Slavery did destroy families. Families were split apart at auctions and sold to different masters.  They were token on boats away from their families where many of them became sick and died Slavery dehumanized the African American people as nothing more than a possession, a thing to be bought and sold. It was a hateful, humiliating existence for them.

And I guess the ones who were lucky enough to not be sold to different masters did stay together as a family since slavery was, you know, a generational thing. The son or daughter of a slave was by birth also a slave. But you go on comparing the Great Society and Civil Rights Act to slavery and those black voters will keep turning out 90% GOP every election.

 I love that old Republican "They destroyed the African American family" Sort of like the Welfare Queen Reagan spoke often of, or how Republicans say Blacks vote Democrat because they're brainwashed and don't know any better. I'd say in the last 30-40 years Conservatives have a much more dark record on race.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, he was a great liar and manipulator of the press who used tactics similar to Nixon but unlike him managed to keep the press on his side and was never held accountable.


Not to mention the fact that his policies did what Slavery and Segregation never could, destroy the African American family.

He was an F on all fronts and an F- on Vietnam which he both escalated and subsequently lost for the US.

Well you figure while he escalated over Vietnam he only presided over the war from 65-69 (as that's when the war went from just being military personnel to ground troops), Nixon and Ford had the war from 69-75 and presided over the middle and end of it and tried different strategies and still weren't able to win.

And I love that you basically say his policies were worse than segregation and slavery. Slavery did destroy families. Families were split apart at auctions and sold to different masters.  They were token on boats away from their families where many of them became sick and died Slavery dehumanized the African American people as nothing more than a possession, a thing to be bought and sold. It was a hateful, humiliating existence for them.

And I guess the ones who were lucky enough to not be sold to different masters did stay together as a family since slavery was, you know, a generational thing. The son or daughter of a slave was by birth also a slave. But you go on comparing the Great Society and Civil Rights Act to slavery and those black voters will keep turning out 90% GOP every election.

 I love that old Republican "They destroyed the African American family" Sort of like the Welfare Queen Reagan spoke often of, or how Republicans say Blacks vote Democrat because they're brainwashed and don't know any better. I'd say in the last 30-40 years Conservatives have a much more dark record on race.

1. We did win Vietnam. Nixon certainly did. It was the Johnson administration and the liberal Democratic controlled Congress in 1975 that lost it.

2. I wasn't talking about the Civil Rights Act, one of the few things he did get right albeit far later then most Republicans. All but three Republicans voted for CRA while every Southern Democrat voted no including Al Gores father and J William Fulbright, who the left loves for opposing Vietnam, and Sam Ervin, who the left loves for supporting impeachment of Nixon. Don't ever condescend or read to much in what I am saying, you will catch hell from me. Especially on this issue. You have obviously never paid attention to what I have posted or written on this topic and as the old saying goes, "If you don't know, don't guess".

3. I know all about Slavery, and I feal insulted by your assumptions of my position on this issue, and I demand you apologize to me immediately. If you have read any of my posts about the CSA in the Civil War thread you would know that.  I would have strongly supported both the end of Slavery and Segregation. One of my favorite losing Presidential candidates was John C. Fremont and Lincoln one of my favorite Presidents. I also like Martin Luther King Jr and his methods of using non-violence and both the systems of American Democracy and American capitalism to bring Segregation to its knees.
 I am insulted that you have insinuated me to be some right wing hack on this issue when you clearly haven't the slighest idea what the hell you taking about. I am also one of the few Republicans who feels it necessary to try and win at least some black votes.

4. Now you have descended the steps of Dante straight into bottom of hell. I was referring to the quiet change in the Welfare programs (not even the Welfare itself, you really are out of bounds on this one) that made it financially beneficial to get divorced or not marry. It is very strange the rise in out of wedlock birth rates, divorce and the destruction of the black family in general skyrockets in the late 1960's to 1970's. Blacks, a large number of them have been brainwashed into thinking that racist latte Liberals trully care about them. When their policies have made them dependent on the gov't and a guarrenteed voting block. The issue which has kept African Americans from advancing financially and led to high rates of crime among African Americans is the collapse of the African American families and Democrats haven't done and don't seem capable of doing a damn thing about it. When your party addresses this issue, then you can say something about it, but untill then you are party of the status quo in the African American community not their advancement.   

Inspite of slavery, African Americans were able in many cases to maintain familial bonds though many times they were not, most of the time they were able to stay together. To deny that is an outright lie and an exaggeration. That and faith were among the few things that kept them going to the day of their liberation from tyranny and opression. The great truth of LBJ's Great Society is he removed the last shackle of Segregation on the one hand but tore assunder the one thing African Americans had going for them, their strong sense of family. Nice going Liberals.


I demand an immediate apology for your assumptions, insinuations, mischaracterizations and overall insulting attitude which you have exhibited toward me in this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh yea, I am so supportive of slavery that I justify the use of state's rights to defend it, oh wait 



My thoughts are the same on segregation as well.  Read it carefully Moderate Dem.

[cpeeks]

I guess it all depends if you think medicare and medicaid are good things. I dont. I am against the goverment taking from me for SSI, medicare, and medicaid. So therefore he was a horrible president just like FDR. They moved us toward socialism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He also was horrible period and lacked any sense of ethics. He had a win at all costs mentality. Look at the 1964 campaign which he was guarranteed to win from the start. He even went so far as to bug Goldwater's campaign headquarters, yet no Watergate scandal or anything even close. Not to mention running some of the most vicious campaign attack ads in history, all in an election in which he himself regarded as a mere speedbump along the away.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Hell no. Total disaster on every front.

LBJ was quite possibly the worst president of the 20th century.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He also was horrible period and lacked any sense of ethics. He had a win at all costs mentality. Look at the 1964 campaign which he was guarranteed to win from the start. He even went so far as to bug Goldwater's campaign headquarters, yet no Watergate scandal or anything even close. Not to mention running some of the most vicious campaign attack ads in history, all in an election in which he himself regarded as a mere speedbump along the away.

There are many similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. I am convinced that those are probably the only two presidents we've ever had who genuinely did not give a sh**t about the fate of the country and its people. True sociopaths.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He also was horrible period and lacked any sense of ethics. He had a win at all costs mentality. Look at the 1964 campaign which he was guarranteed to win from the start. He even went so far as to bug Goldwater's campaign headquarters, yet no Watergate scandal or anything even close. Not to mention running some of the most vicious campaign attack ads in history, all in an election in which he himself regarded as a mere speedbump along the away.

There are many similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. I am convinced that those are probably the only two presidents we've ever had who genuinely did not give a sh**t about the fate of the country and its people. True sociopaths.

Nixon to his credit went in with strategy for the war and most of his actions with regards to Foreign policy were related to the objective of getting the US out without NV takeover and he succeeded  having most forces out by 1972 with the conflict ending in 1973.

Nixon also beefed up the nations nuclear arsenal which had falled behind under Johnson with Submarine based launchers and then anti-missile missiles. He however screwed up when he signed Salt 1 which took away a key US technology advantage for little in return.

Other then that, Nixon made a lot of mistakes especially domestically not to mention ethical lapses that proved to be his downfall. 

[LBJ Revivalist]

Funny how I only see reference to his ''bugging'' of Goldwater's HQ on Conservative websites such as Free Republic and the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly unbiased sources.

I still think he was one of the best, personally.

And divorce rates climbed overall in the 60s and 70s for all races, I don't think it had as much to do with LBJ as it did with the growing social openness and liberalism. I've read divorce dates in the late 60s doubled, and they've been rising ever since. I think it was just a facet of the era, rather like the Hippie movement, which was nothing more than a Communist inspired 50s Beatnik & 1920s Bohemian movement on steroids.

Moderator note: In future, please avoid crossposting identical replies to multiple threads.  The two copies of this post made in the The Civil War thread caused me to be in a shoot first ask questions later mentality. Quoting what you are responding to when it isn't in the post immediately previous would also help. Post restored to original text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Funny how I only see reference to his ''bugging'' of Goldwater's HQ on Conservative websites such as Free Republic and the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly unbiased sources.

I still think he was one of the best, personally.

And divorce rates climbed overall in the 60s and 70s for all races, I don't think it had as much to do with LBJ as it did with the growing social openness and liberalism. I've read divorce dates in the late 60s doubled, and they've been rising ever since. I think it was just a facet of the era, rather like the Hippie movement, which was nothing more than a Communist inspired 50s Beatnik & 1920s Bohemian movement on steroids.

Indeed, but the movement was disproportionately among blacks in the era. In 1950, the percentage of intact White families was 88%, for blacks it was 78%. Over the twelve years following 1967, the percentage of blacks dropped to 59% while Whites were still at 85%. Most of the decline came after 1967. You can't dispute that the black family 1) collapsed in this period 2) if did, what else caused it to drop so much compared to whites. Certainly the things you mentioned had an impact and certainly didn't help but financial incentives are powerful forces and in an environment in which family and marriage were being challenged by social changes, one can be sure that it had a large impact. Keep in mind blacks are overall much poorer and thus more likely to need assistance and so the effect of it would be much larger on them.

Bugging was fairly common in that era before laws were enacted following Wategate. J Edgar Hoover used them against Martin Luther King Jr. This source mentions the "bugging of Goldwaters campaign plane" and is hardly a right wing source either and it is describing a passage from a book which it names above

[Derek]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

[LBJ Revivalist]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

The segregationists were unfortuantely brilliant tactically in using States Rights as cover for their ideology of hate. Even so, the GOP even the Conservative wing went strongly Pro-CRA. Only three Senators, Milton Young (R-ND), John Tower (R-TX), and Barry Goldwater voted no. Republicans since have failed to even try and work for black votes so they let Democrats take advantage of the fact that Goldwater was the nominee to win 90% of the black vote. And I saw this earlier in ModerateDemocrat's statements that we have reached a point in which to oppose Liberalism means to oppose "African Americans".  I think he is being more racist then he knows in claiming that African Americans are uniformly liberal and for denying them the ability to decide for themselves what ideology is best. It should also be noted the horrendous treatment of Conservative blacks and even apolitical blacks who take a somewhat conservative position. The truth is that every election the GOP ignores them largely and the Dems keep them in line whenever cracks appear with ridiculous assertions like the ads run in 2000 and subsequent ads run by CBCers in majority black districts they would never lose barring a scandal claiming that if their opponents won churches would be bombed and crosses would be burned. The condition among African Americans will never improve untill they are a voting bloc coveted by both sides hence the Democrats lack of concern for the most pressing issue facing the black community, the collapse of the family, and the Republicans lack of effort to win their votes. Republicans have got to fight for them. Even getting 15% to 20% can provide the key to winning in a state like Ohio or Michigan.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

Uh, LBJ opposed civil rights throughout his career. Even when presidential aspirations caused him to flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson's primary goal was to water it down as much as possible.

Johnson was a crooked lying sociopath who didn't care about anyone but himself and his own political ambition.

Johnson's agenda, foreign and domestic, was a total failure by any reasonable measure.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

It doesn't matter too much what the intent of LBJ's policies were.  What matters is the effect they had.

[LBJ Revivalist]

Funny how I only see reference to his ''bugging'' of Goldwater's HQ on Conservative websites such as Free Republic and the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly unbiased sources.

I still think he was one of the best, personally.

And divorce rates climbed overall in the 60s and 70s for all races, I don't think it had as much to do with LBJ as it did with the growing social openness and liberalism. I've read divorce dates in the late 60s doubled, and they've been rising ever since. I think it was just a facet of the era, rather like the Hippie movement, which was nothing more than a Communist inspired 50s Beatnik & 1920s Bohemian movement on steroids.

Indeed, but the movement was disproportionately among blacks in the era. In 1950, the percentage of intact White families was 88%, for blacks it was 78%. Over the twelve years following 1967, the percentage of blacks dropped to 59% while Whites were still at 85%. Most of the decline came after 1967. You can't dispute that the black family 1) collapsed in this period 2) if did, what else caused it to drop so much compared to whites. Certainly the things you mentioned had an impact and certainly didn't help but financial incentives are powerful forces and in an environment in which family and marriage were being challenged by social changes, one can be sure that it had a large impact. Keep in mind blacks are overall much poorer and thus more likely to need assistance and so the effect of it would be much larger on them.

Bugging was fairly common in that era before laws were enacted following Wategate. J Edgar Hoover used them against Martin Luther King Jr. This source mentions the "bugging of Goldwaters campaign plane" and is hardly a right wing source either and it is describing a passage from a book which it names above

Well, to be honest, if it comes down to greed--Which that's what it would come down to, as you said money being a big incentive to people--Than you can't blame greedy people for a system. What I mean is...Is it the fault of the program or the fault of people who feel its easier to get money from the government than keep a family together? I blame the individuals who abuse the system for abuses, not the system itself.

I think in the end the programs he created or helped create have done more good than harm for a lot of people, you don't have to agree. I don't really agree with Welfare though as in Food Stamps and whatnot, I think welfare should be more workfare.

And the Great Society was more than just Medicaid and Medicare--It had such great environmental legislation, educational legislation for example the secondary school grants and Nursing Program grants which helped revitalize the Nursing industry and within a decade or so turned it from a relatively low paying and under taught skill to becoming a professional occupation. My mother benefited greatly from the Nurse Training Act, the school she attended used it to fund a 'free' program for potential students whose parents worked at that hospital. Or the Bilingual Education Act, which offered aid to schools to teach children English. Or the Teacher Corps. Or the Higher Education Act. Or Head Start--A great program which has benefited many kids, many of whom I know who aren't users and it enriched their lives. It was just about Medicare or Medicaid, and a lot of the Great Society programs have done a lot of good.

And I believe the War on Poverty, which was aside from the Great Society, worked. It didn't eliminate poverty, but that's not possible. But I've read poverty rates for both blacks and whites and while the white poverty rate didn't decline significantly, the black poverty rate within a decade went down by more than 20%.

The overall Poverty Rate (all races) in 1960 was 22.2%, and in 1974 (ten years after the War on Poverty began) it was 11.2%

The white poverty rate overall in 1960 was 17.8, and in 1974 it was 8.6%.

The black poverty rate overall in 1960 was 55.1 and in 1974 was 30.3%.

And if bugging was common than, and really not challenged until Watergate, I don't see the problem with it. I really didn't see the problem with Watergate itself either. It's politics, politics is like war, all sorts of dirty tricks abound. Bugging is just more obvious. The press had a big issue with Nixon from the '60s and were just waiting for him to slip up, and as he said himself, he gave them a sword and they twisted it in with relish. Sadly it ended a nice era of private presidential recordings; I love listening to people like FDR or JFK or LBJ or Nixon speak in private and casually, it sort of sheds light on who they are as people.

[LBJ Revivalist]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

Uh, LBJ opposed civil rights throughout his career. Even when presidential aspirations caused him to flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson's primary goal was to water it down as much as possible.

Johnson was a crooked lying sociopath who didn't care about anyone but himself and his own political ambition.

Johnson's agenda, foreign and domestic, was a total failure by any reasonable measure.

He may have done that in '57 but with the '64 Act he fought tooth and nail to ensure it wasn't diluted, and was told by other Southern Democratics that it'd cost him his political career, however by then his views had changed and he fought for it's passage. He felt had Kennedy been alive it would've been watered down like the '57 bill.

People's opinions can change, and people's opinions in private and in public can contradict. Nixon created Affirmative Action for the most part and also is credited with fully desegregating schools yet in private believed blacks were ''just down from the trees.'' Politicians overall are weird people.

And I think he cared a lot about this nation, but that's just my opinion.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

Uh, LBJ opposed civil rights throughout his career. Even when presidential aspirations caused him to flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson's primary goal was to water it down as much as possible.

Johnson was a crooked lying sociopath who didn't care about anyone but himself and his own political ambition.

Johnson's agenda, foreign and domestic, was a total failure by any reasonable measure.

He may have done that in '57 but with the '64 Act he fought tooth and nail to ensure it wasn't diluted, and was told by other Southern Democratics that it'd cost him his political career, however by then his views had changed and he fought for it's passage. He felt had Kennedy been alive it would've been watered down like the '57 bill.

People's opinions can change, and people's opinions in private and in public can contradict. Nixon created Affirmative Action for the most part and also is credited with fully desegregating schools yet in private believed blacks were ''just down from the trees.'' Politicians overall are weird people.

And I think he cared a lot about this nation, but that's just my opinion.

LBJ fought for the CRA of 64 because it's passage would add to his presidential prestige while it's defeat would have been an embarrassment. Johnson was a two-faced backstabbing bigot like Nixon; both were vile human beings.

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."
--Lyndon B. Johnson

[Sewer]

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."[/b]
--Lyndon B. Johnson

Cite?