Most Underrated President

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

Good thing historians agree with my assessment of Reagan more than they do of yours

True, the most recent assessments of historians place him around 11th out of 42-43 (WH Harrison and Garfield aren't usually rated due to their short administrations, and some don't rate Trump yet).

I'm frankly not sure why, and have tried to find some assessments based on historical facts to place him above average. Care to offer yours, or are you satisfied to simply offer rote slogans like "confronting Communism"? Serious offer.

Except that was a huge reason why the Soviet Union Fell. Throughout the Cold War(Especially from 1962-1981) the US was mostly playing defense while the Soviet Union was playing offense . This meant that the US had to use resources and even sometimes send in the military just to defend existing capitalist  states from falling to the communists kept on expanding throught the world(or at the very least destablizing capitalism countries) .


What Reagan recognized was the Soviet Union, unlike the US, did not have the ability to play defense and he exploited it. While Grenada, for example, may seem like a small victory was the first military rollback of a Communist Nation(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-invades-grenada). That proved a huge belief that the Soviets had was wrong(That a capitalist country can become communist but a communist country cannot become capitalist ) . This along with the US funding rebels in many different communist countries forced the Soviets to play defense and their economy couldnt handle that and that hastend their fall.

Now do I give Reagan the biggest credit for winning the Cold War no, I give more credit to Nixon.




Also I dont rate Reagan that much higher than these rankings rates him : https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall


I have him tied for 7th with IKE and behind Washington, Lincoln , FDR, Jefferson , Teddy , Truman

[Badger]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

Good thing historians agree with my assessment of Reagan more than they do of yours

True, the most recent assessments of historians place him around 11th out of 42-43 (WH Harrison and Garfield aren't usually rated due to their short administrations, and some don't rate Trump yet).

I'm frankly not sure why, and have tried to find some assessments based on historical facts to place him above average. Care to offer yours, or are you satisfied to simply offer rote slogans like "confronting Communism"? Serious offer.

Except that was a huge reason why the Soviet Union Fell. Throughout the Cold War(Especially from 1962-1981) the US was mostly playing defense while the Soviet Union was playing offense . This meant that the US had to use resources and even sometimes send in the military just to defend existing capitalist  states from falling to the communists kept on expanding throught the world(or at the very least destablizing capitalism countries) .


What Reagan recognized was the Soviet Union, unlike the US, did not have the ability to play defense and he exploited it. While Grenada, for example, may seem like a small victory was the first military rollback of a Communist Nation(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-invades-grenada). That proved a huge belief that the Soviets had was wrong(That a capitalist country can become communist but a communist country cannot become capitalist ) . This along with the US funding rebels in many different communist countries forced the Soviets to play defense and their economy couldnt handle that and that hastend their fall.

Now do I give Reagan the biggest credit for winning the Cold War no, I give more credit to Nixon.




Also I dont rate Reagan that much higher than these rankings rates him : https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall


I have him tied for 7th with IKE and behind Washington, Lincoln , FDR, Jefferson , Teddy , Truman

Grenada? F****** Grenada?!? Once again you go with all these little slogans and buzzwords like playing offense versus defense. This isn't the NBA, Mac. Yes Grenada was nice. And given that there was exactly zero Democratic opposition to it ( possible exception of Congressman Ron dellums, a longtime Democratic Socialist who represented the Berkeley area, and that is literally it), there is exactly zero reason to suppose that the Grenada Invasion wouldn't of occurred under Carter second term or hypothetically if it occurred in an alternate universe in 1985, under President Mondale.

Care to try again with any specifics whatsoever? Hell, I was actually coming to post hear that, why don't believe he's particularly underrated, George HW Bush deserves credit for going out on a limb and doing a marvelous job with the Iraq invasion. There is very little reason to believe that if Dukakis had been elected instead that Kuwait would not now be the 19th province of Iraq. However, you are proving that just about everything Reagan cultists Point towards a specific examples of Reagan having anything more than a nominal impact on the Cold War ending when it did are either debatable at best if not outright counterproductive, such as being ran Contra affair and supporting the apartheid regime over Nelson Mandela-- history's never going to be kind of Reagan over that and justifiably so - or encountered nominal to zero Democratic opposition home and would have been instituted a bipartisan the base is under a democratic Administration, such as continuing the funding of Afghan Rebels like President Carter started, you know mr. Weak on communism like you claim, or the Invasion of Grenada.

Whole lot of rah-rah cheerleading, but next to zero substance.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

Good thing historians agree with my assessment of Reagan more than they do of yours

True, the most recent assessments of historians place him around 11th out of 42-43 (WH Harrison and Garfield aren't usually rated due to their short administrations, and some don't rate Trump yet).

I'm frankly not sure why, and have tried to find some assessments based on historical facts to place him above average. Care to offer yours, or are you satisfied to simply offer rote slogans like "confronting Communism"? Serious offer.

Except that was a huge reason why the Soviet Union Fell. Throughout the Cold War(Especially from 1962-1981) the US was mostly playing defense while the Soviet Union was playing offense . This meant that the US had to use resources and even sometimes send in the military just to defend existing capitalist  states from falling to the communists kept on expanding throught the world(or at the very least destablizing capitalism countries) .


What Reagan recognized was the Soviet Union, unlike the US, did not have the ability to play defense and he exploited it. While Grenada, for example, may seem like a small victory was the first military rollback of a Communist Nation(https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-invades-grenada). That proved a huge belief that the Soviets had was wrong(That a capitalist country can become communist but a communist country cannot become capitalist ) . This along with the US funding rebels in many different communist countries forced the Soviets to play defense and their economy couldnt handle that and that hastend their fall.

Now do I give Reagan the biggest credit for winning the Cold War no, I give more credit to Nixon.




Also I dont rate Reagan that much higher than these rankings rates him : https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall


I have him tied for 7th with IKE and behind Washington, Lincoln , FDR, Jefferson , Teddy , Truman

Grenada? F****** Grenada?!? Once again you go with all these little slogans and buzzwords like playing offense versus defense. This isn't the NBA, Mac. Yes Grenada was nice. And given that there was exactly zero Democratic opposition to it ( possible exception of Congressman Ron dellums, a longtime Democratic Socialist who represented the Berkeley area, and that is literally it), there is exactly zero reason to suppose that the Grenada Invasion wouldn't of occurred under Carter second term or hypothetically if it occurred in an alternate universe in 1985, under President Mondale.

Care to try again with any specifics whatsoever? Hell, I was actually coming to post hear that, why don't believe he's particularly underrated, George HW Bush deserves credit for going out on a limb and doing a marvelous job with the Iraq invasion. There is very little reason to believe that if Dukakis had been elected instead that Kuwait would not now be the 19th province of Iraq. However, you are proving that just about everything Reagan cultists Point towards a specific examples of Reagan having anything more than a nominal impact on the Cold War ending when it did are either debatable at best if not outright counterproductive, such as being ran Contra affair and supporting the apartheid regime over Nelson Mandela-- history's never going to be kind of Reagan over that and justifiably so - or encountered nominal to zero Democratic opposition home and would have been instituted a bipartisan the base is under a democratic Administration, such as continuing the funding of Afghan Rebels like President Carter started, you know mr. Weak on communism like you claim, or the Invasion of Grenada.

Whole lot of rah-rah cheerleading, but next to zero substance.

I 100% agree HW is underrated (probably the most underrated president ever)


- Gulf War was handled marvelously
- End of Cold War was handled perfectly
- Economy actually started to pick up steam in 1992

[136or142]

LBJ obviously. Ford is also heavily underrated. Also, call me crazy, but I think that Richard Nixon deserves more credit for the positive things he accomplished and his intellect.

I'm always going to feel more positive of Nixon because of Detente.

Nixon based on the high quality of many of his policies outside of crime issues and Vietnam.

[WMS]

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution?

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

Neither one of you is totally correct. Badger is closer to the mark, but is missing one important bit:

There were TWO revolutions in Iran. The first one was the overthrow of the Shah, and that could only have been prevented by a bloodbath - which could've happened if the Iranian military had been willing to do it.

But that is NOT the same as the Islamic Revolution. That happened afterwards when Khomeini and company grabbed control of the country and imposed their own regime - with considerable support, yes, but this was hardly the aim of all those who fought to bring down the Shah. Whether or not that could've been prevented by Carter is a different question...

[Gass3268]

Grant

[Orser67]

By historians:

Monroe: I think he was a near-great president. He was an outstanding success in foreign affairs, reaching important treaties with Spain (acquiring Florida), Britain (splitting Oregon and demilitarizing the Great Lakes), and Russia. In domestic affairs, he generally supported infrastructure development and western expansion, and played a small role in reaching the Missouri Compromise.

Tyler: he's usually regarded as a total failure, and I'm no fan of his Texas policy. But he actually had a pretty successful foreign policy, he established a good precedent in terms of the vice president becoming president (and not just "acting president"), and he did sign some Whig bills that were helpful. I think he's more a below-average president than a terrible president.

Benjamin Harrison: Cleveland and McKinley are often viewed as transitional presidents towards the modern, powerful presidency, but Harrison deserves a little credit too. He signed the first major anti-trust law, sought to expand U.S. trade through reciprocity treaties, favored an unsuccessful civil rights bill (the last serious attempt at the federal level to protect the rights of African American until the 1930s), and was an early proponent of conservationism. I think he was easily the best president between Grant and McKinley, and should also be above below-average presidents like Bush II, Van Buren, Coolidge, Carter, Ford, and Quincy Adams.

Harding: he should be in the bottom ten, but he's not nearly as bad as Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon.

By the public, Carter. He was a below average president, but not the total failure people make him out to be. His foreign policy from 1977-1979 was a needed course correction for human rights, and after the start of the Afghan-Soviet War he began a military build-up that was continued by Reagan. Domestically, he was terrible at working with Congress, but his appointment of Volcker and other policies eventually helped to quash inflation. Also, Wilson. He's deservedly criticized for his policies on racial issues, but he wasn't that much worse than his contemporaries. His (non-racial) domestic record pre-1916 was outstanding (Federal Reserve, income tax, anti-trust), and his League of Nations was the model for an organization (the UN) that did work.

[HillGoose]

Herbert Hoover or George W Bush

[Senator-elect Spark]

Leslie Lynch King Jr. aka Gerald Ford, James K. Polk.

[Torrain]

William Henry Harrison
Dude could read a speach.