Question for Dems: W or Perry? You choose

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I love how Dems always think the latest Republican is somehow the worst.

When Nixon and Ford were president, they said Eisenhower was better.

When Reagan and Bush 41 were president they said Nixon and Ford were better.

When Bush 43 was president they said Reagan and Bush 41 were better.

Now they're going to think Bush 43 is better than Perry? Really?

Eisenhower > Ford > Nixon > Bush 41 > Reagan > Bush 43 > any loser in this field.  Is this absolute fact really that hard for you comprehend?

Eh, I'd say that most of the people in this field would be better than Bush except Bachmann, Cain, and Perry. (Yes, I think Santorum would be an improvement)

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I love how Dems always think the latest Republican is somehow the worst.

When Nixon and Ford were president, they said Eisenhower was better.

When Reagan and Bush 41 were president they said Nixon and Ford were better.

When Bush 43 was president they said Reagan and Bush 41 were better.

Now they're going to think Bush 43 is better than Perry? Really?

Eisenhower was one of the best presidents of the 20th century.  I'm a liberal and I openly say that.  Eisenhower was a better president than George W Bush, Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush.

As a Texan, yes Rick Perry is likely to be a worse President than Bush.  I also think George W Bush was better than Reagan.  Reagan's theory of economics has been a disaster that is so deeply ingrained in conservative philosophy it will take a generation to undo the damage he did

That does not mean George W Bush was a decent president, he was a failure by any measure.

[rwoy]

I love how Dems always think the latest Republican is somehow the worst.

When Nixon and Ford were president, they said Eisenhower was better.

When Reagan and Bush 41 were president they said Nixon and Ford were better.

When Bush 43 was president they said Reagan and Bush 41 were better.

Now they're going to think Bush 43 is better than Perry? Really?

Ike > Bush 41 > Ford > Reagan > Nixon > Perry > Bush 43

[pbrower2a]

Germany.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Dubya: both more moderate and less of an idiot. Dubya actually had priciples and stood by them, even when it was clear to everyone outside his inner circle that he was wrong. Perry has nothing but swagger. Even worse, he is a political opportunist of the worst type: less than two years ago, he was threatening secession, now he wants to be president.

I love how Dems always think the latest Republican is somehow the worst.

When Nixon and Ford were president, they said Eisenhower was better.

When Reagan and Bush 41 were president they said Nixon and Ford were better.

When Bush 43 was president they said Reagan and Bush 41 were better.

Now they're going to think Bush 43 is better than Perry? Really?

Bush 41 was better than Reagan and Bush 43. Ford was better than Nixon, if only because Ford wasn't a crook. Nixon was a bad president not because of his policies (which were actually decent) but because of his betrayal of the public trust.

[minionofmidas]

DW Perry.

[minionofmidas]

I love how Dems always think the latest Republican is somehow the worst.

When Nixon and Ford were president, they said Eisenhower was better.

When Reagan and Bush 41 were president they said Nixon and Ford were better.

When Bush 43 was president they said Reagan and Bush 41 were better.

Now they're going to think Bush 43 is better than Perry? Really?

Eisenhower was one of the best presidents of the 20th century.  I'm a liberal and I openly say that.  Eisenhower was a better president than George W Bush, Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush.

Eisenhower was, by any reasonable standard I can think of, the most "leftwing" Republican President, either ever of since Rutherford Hayes. So he's a very unfair point to start.

[Paul Kemp]

DW Perry.

Obviously the only correct answer.

Eisenhower was, by any reasonable standard I can think of, the most "leftwing" Republican President, either ever of since Rutherford Hayes. So he's a very unfair point to start.

More than TR?

[Username MechaRFK]

DW Perry.

Obviously the only correct answer.

Eisenhower was, by any reasonable standard I can think of, the most "leftwing" Republican President, either ever of since Rutherford Hayes. So he's a very unfair point to start.

More than TR?

Or even Richard Nixon?

[minionofmidas]

Absolutely. Nothing remotely leftwing about TR.
(Oh, and "of" should be "or".)
Nixon is, of course, a special case.

[Paul Kemp]

Absolutely. Nothing remotely leftwing about TR.

what.

[minionofmidas]

Arch-imperialist, injun-hating upper class twit. Concerned mostly with economic "progress".
Yeah, there's the toothless (except against unions) trust-busting rhetoric, but that's neither here nor there. There is, and I hadn't thought of that, the conservation pioneer thing. I suppose that can be counted in his favor.

[Paul Kemp]

Arch-imperialist, injun-hating upper class twit. Concerned mostly with economic "progress".
Yeah, there's the toothless (except against unions) trust-busting rhetoric, but that's neither here nor there. There is, and I hadn't thought of that, the conservation pioneer thing. I suppose that can be counted in his favor.

TR instituted the greatest era of government regulation, next to the New Deal.

I don't understand how not only you can believe that TR wasn't somewhat leftwing but that Ike was more leftwing than him, unless you're using an extraordinarily narrow focus.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Absolutely. Nothing remotely leftwing about TR.
(Oh, and "of" should be "or".)
Nixon is, of course, a special case.

He was big with the conversation movement.  National parks, national forests, etc I'm sure that idea would be derided as fascist/socialist/authoritarian/totalitarian/communist/etc by the modern day conservative movement in the Republican party.  Although Eisenhower did defend the 91% tax rate for the top rate.

Either way, both Eisenhower and Roosevelt were leaders.

[minionofmidas]

Although Eisenhower did defend the 91% tax rate for the top rate.

Exactly. Eisenhower presided over the greatest era of equality the world has ever seen. (And "planning", howdy boy.)
And let's not forget Little Rock, please.

[Paul Kemp]

Although Eisenhower did defend the 91% tax rate for the top rate.

Exactly. Eisenhower presided over the greatest era of equality the world has ever seen. (And "planning", howdy boy.)
And let's not forget Little Rock, please.

You're pulling my leg right? That makes him more left wing than massive government regulation?

What in the world do you mean by "the greatest era of equality the world has ever seen?" I believe there are a great many pockets of society that will disagree on that one.

It's not as if Eisenhower was a dove either. Look at some of the coups of the decade and the beginnings of Vietnam.

The biggest thing Eisenhower had going for him was that it was a period of relative calm, compared to the decade prior and after.

I'm saying this all as a fan of the Eisenhower presidency too.

[© tweed]

you'd probably see a lot of recycled elements from Reagan-Bush-Bush in any (R) administration.  the dark secret is none would differ on 95-99% of relevant issues from Obama, as Obama has not from Bush-Bush-Reagan.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

You're pulling my leg right? That makes him more left wing than massive government regulation?

What in the world do you mean by "the greatest era of equality the world has ever seen?" I believe there are a great many pockets of society that will disagree on that one.

It's not as if Eisenhower was a dove either. Look at some of the coups of the decade and the beginnings of Vietnam.

The biggest thing Eisenhower had going for him was that it was a period of relative calm, compared to the decade prior and after.

I'm saying this all as a fan of the Eisenhower presidency too.

I don't think his is pulling your leg

Taxes are everything to the modern day Republican party.  Everything.  If the conservatives had to choose between raising taxes on America by one cent or see Washington D.C. crumble to the ground they would chose the later.

At the most recent Republican debate every single Republican said they would reject a debt reducing plan which would cut spending 10 dollars to 1 dollar in tax increases.

[Paul Kemp]

Yes but Lewis is in no way affiliated in any circumstance to the GOP.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Ike was the best post-war president from either party. Come to think of it, it kind of strikes me as odd that conservatives are so nostalgic for the 50s, when it was a time of high taxes, high regulation, massive government spending and expansion, and social discontent (which granted, didn't come to a head until the 60s, but still).

[minionofmidas]

Yes but Lewis is in no way affiliated in any circumstance to the GOP.

And neither would be Eisenhower.

Ike was the best post-war president from either party. Come to think of it, it kind of strikes me as odd that conservatives are so nostalgic for the 50s, when it was a time of high taxes, high regulation, massive government spending and expansion, and social discontent (which granted, didn't come to a head until the 60s, but still).

The 50s were not a time of social discontent. Some of the later discontent was bred then, but it's a classic "revolution of rising expectations" process.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

And neither would be Eisenhower.

Obviously Eisenhower falls out of line with the modern day Republican party.  No doubt the GOP today would unilaterally reject him as being a communist/totalitarian/socialist/fascist/dictator/authoritarian/etc

He is historically a Republican.  It just shows how conservative the GOP has become.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This took me a minute to consider.  I picked Dubya.  Now, helllooooo Canada!

[krazen1211]

Ike was the best post-war president from either party. Come to think of it, it kind of strikes me as odd that conservatives are so nostalgic for the 50s, when it was a time of high taxes, high regulation, massive government spending and expansion, and social discontent (which granted, didn't come to a head until the 60s, but still).

Massive spending?

The 50s was pre-Medicare.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Massive spending?

The 50s was pre-Medicare.

So there can't be massive spending without medicare? 

The United States was spending more and more on military costs during Eisenhower.  So much money was flowing into the defense industry and it became so invasive that during his farewell address Eisenhower addressed the military industrial complex. 

I have a feeling that even if medicare was completely abolished the conservatives would still complain about big government and massive spending.