Best and Worst US Presidents of all time.

[The lepearchauns]

Best of all time...tough. FD Roosevelt is toward the top. He guided us out of the great depression and then through the deadliest attack and biggest war of our countries history
Honorable mention...I feel weird saying it...but Clinton was a darn good president. He kept a pretty solid economy through the 90s and mostly managed to avoid war. Thats all you can ask for nowadays

Worst of all time... GW Bush...He DESTROYED the american economy, started 2 wars with no way out and handled national disasters the same way a 12yo deals with a bad report card
Honorable mention...Nixon and A. "genocide" Jackson... for being 2 of the biggest A holes in american history
Close...Barack Obama...I actually agree with how hes gone about things, but he is the weakest president in US history(counting the guy who died of pneumonia 3 months in). At a time when we need a strong leader to pull us out of the crapper, he has the policy, but caves at the knees at the first sign of conflict

Best Mustache... Taft...damn he rocked that thing

Most likely to curse a city...McKinley...Buffalo has never been the same...a**

[Maurepas]

I am, and he didn't get involved until the Germans started attacking our shipping lanes. Sure we were selling arms before that, but I don't have a problem there.

IIRC, more US ships were sunk by Brit mines than my German anti-shipping efforts though. :/

Well hindsight is 20/20 there, the Germans did have a policy of unrestricted naval warfare, and it wasn't until then that he got involved in the war. I feel it to be proper procedure, you don't get involved until the US is actually being threatened.

[Dracoria]

Anyone who lists a very recent or current president, I'm ignoring. You're viewing them through a subjective eye, not the lens of history.

Some'll hate me, but I kind of like Nixon. He got a lot accomplished in terms of diplomacy and administration, even if he was a sleezy, homely little old man with a temper. If, instead of Watergate, he had been shot in office like JFK, he'd probably be remembered quite fondly - perhaps even more by Democrats than Republicans these days.

It's hard to pick a worst, as the mid to late 19th century featured quite a few cases of corruption. I'd have to read up on all of the presidents from that era again and try to decide which screwed up the most.

[The lepearchauns]

I dont mind Nixon either...he was just a paranoind and terrible person

[The lepearchauns]

As an edit...Pierce and Buchanon are at the bottom of my list too...for doing nothing to stop civil war

[Dracoria]

I dont mind Nixon either...he was just a paranoind and terrible person

Paraphrased from Starcraft 1, "He's a snake...But he's OUR snake."

[Ruridova]

I didn't pick one, I picked the Top 10 Best and the Top 4 Worst.

Best, in order chronolgically: Washington(founder, general, diplomat, etc.), Jefferson(wrote Declaration of Independence), Linoln(reunified the Union), Polk(annexed Texas ), Roosevelt(Teddy)(Panama canal, San Juan Hill, trustbusting), Wilson(WWI, League of Nations, anti-Versailles treaty), Roosevelt(Franklin)(Great depression, WW2), Truman(WW2, UN), JFK(handling the Cuban Crisis), Reagan(ending the Cold War peacefully).
Worst, same order: Jackson(I'm part Cherokee, if that explains it), LBJ(Vietnam), Nixon(did a lot of awesome stuff, but Watergate knida ruined it), and Dubya(attacking the wrong country, screwing the world economy, not killing bin Laden, election fraud, spying on his own people, etc.)

[Revolutopia]

Best
1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3.George Washington
4.Theodore Roosevelt
5.Harry S. Truman

Worst
1.James Buchanan
2.William Harding
3.Franklin Pierce
4.Andrew Johnson
5.Ulysses S. Grant

Oh, Grant? Really?

He had some good policies. Just... Terrible, terrible judgement!

Yes, I agree that as a man he was great, both in military matters and he was pretty open minded for his time. By actually, being one of the few president during the 19th century willing to look out for civil rights for both Blacks and Native Americans in some degree. The problem arises that he was far out of his depth as president and thus foolishly relied on too much corrupt figures thus hampering his effectiveness and ranking.

Thus, why out of a ranking of the president(minus WhHarrison and Garfield for shortness and GWBush and Obama for lack of time since presidency) I rank him
34 out of 39. Particularly, because the other two that might have taken his spot would have been either Hoover and Carter, both who I find faulted to much for a raw deal that they inherited and accomplishments ignored.

[The lepearchauns]

^^^ GW didnt just screw us...he screwed the world. Thanks Texas

[Wazkyraque]

Best: Truman, Roosevelt [either of the Roosevelts], Lincoln, Washington [Only for the most obvious reason]
Leaning-to-Good-est: Nixon, I also rather liked Kennedy.
Middle-est: Bill Clinton
Leaning-to-Bad-est: Wilson, Reagan IMO
Worst: Buchanan, I dislike Andrew Jackson.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, I agree that as a man he was great, both in military matters and he was pretty open minded for his time. By actually, being one of the few president during the 19th century willing to look out for civil rights for both Blacks and Native Americans in some degree. The problem arises that he was far out of his depth as president and thus foolishly relied on too much corrupt figures thus hampering his effectiveness and ranking.

Thus, why out of a ranking of the president(minus WhHarrison and Garfield for shortness and GWBush and Obama for lack of time since presidency) I rank him
34 out of 39. Particularly, because the other two that might have taken his spot would have been either Hoover and Carter, both who I find faulted to much for a raw deal that they inherited and accomplishments ignored.

Fair enough.

[Ruridova]

^^^ GW didnt just screw us...he screwed the world. Thanks Texas

I put Bush as one of my least favorites of all time. Now check my sig and see where I'm from.

[Tmutarakhan]

JFK only gets a free pass because he was killed. Look at the man's policy and you see nothing but populism and mediocrity. Plus, he almost started WW3 (Thank God for Khrushchev)

Uh, Khrushchev almost started WW3 (thank God for JFK), twice actually (the Berlin Wall was intended to force a confrontation, but JFK decided to respond only verbally).

The OP apparently has James Garfield confused with Grover Cleveland, who is notable for his non-consecutive terms but not all that much else: he did help set the precedent that Democrats have juicier sex scandals, while Republicans have more lucrative corruption scandals. His illegitimate child was discovered during the campaign (popular ditty: "Maw, Maw, where's my Paw? Gone to the White House, haw haw haw!") while his opponent James Blaine was found to have taken huge sums from the railroad companies (the New York Times endorsement said, "Cleveland has sinned in his private life, though his public service has been faithful, while Blaine has violated the public trust, although his private life has been impeccable. We therefore recommend electing Cleveland to the public office, and remanding Blaine to that private station he is so eminently suited to adorn.") His re-election bid in 1888 carried New England by large vote totals but lost New York to Benjamin Harrison narrowly, the only case where the Electoral College rules actually settled an election in favor of the popular-vote loser (1876 and 2000, the electoral votes were disputed, and settled by extra-constitutional methods; 1800 and 1824, the electoral vote failed to settle the result, which went to the House of Representatives; some other times, the popular vote winner did not have a majority, but the electoral college converted plurality to majority). 1892 he got the White House back; Republicans in Congress were always unco-operative with him, but I hardly think that alone makes him (or Obama) great.

Garfield, by contrast, was the second-briefest President (after William Henry Harrison, grandfather of the Harrison who interrupted Cleveland's Presidency). Shot only a couple months into his term, he created a constitutional crisis by lingering in a coma, while it was debated whether his Vice President (Chester Alan Arthur, very unmemorable) had authority to take over, and what if Garfield recovered after Arthur had de facto taken over (25th Amendment covers this-- but wasn't put in place until a century later).

[Conserative Morality]

Uh, Khrushchev almost started WW3 (thank God for JFK), twice actually (the Berlin Wall was intended to force a confrontation, but JFK decided to respond only verbally).

lol

Khrushchev stopped WW3 by turning to words when JFK was performing acts of war on the USSR's allies. The Berlin Wall wasn't approved by Khrushchev either. This may shock you, but East Germany was not run by Khrushchev.

[Revolutopia]

^^^ GW didnt just screw us...he screwed the world. Thanks Texas

While, I do believe that in the future GWBush will be ranked pretty low because of the facets of economic policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy I find it premature to rank the man until at least 10 years has past(similarly with Obama). In that, if we look at the attitude to both Truman and Clinton immediately after their term was over they would have been seen as dismal presidents. Yet, now Truman is almost constantly ranked in the top five and Clinton likely in the top twenty. Thus, time can give us a better insight into ones presidency.

[The lepearchauns]

I fully agree. And at the end of Obamas 1st term, you can actually start to remember the begining of Bushs presidency. He handled 9/11 very well and brought the nation together. He was a top 10 contender at that point...then it was all downhill from there

[Conserative Morality]

Thirty years is my rule of thumb for judging presidents.

[Maurepas]

Thirty years is my rule of thumb for judging presidents.

But I'm not thirty years old yet,

[Revolutopia]

I fully agree. And at the end of Obamas 1st term, you can actually start to remember the begining of Bushs presidency. He handled 9/11 very well and brought the nation together. He was a top 10 contender at that point...then it was all downhill from there

Honestly, I really don't think his handling of 9/11 and bringing together America will mean much. Simply, as that seems like a natural reaction that almost every president could have accomplished in a time of tragedy. For example, during the beginning of the Iran Hostage Crisis Carter received high marks from the America people by uniting them against Iran yet I doubt many look at that as one of his strengths.

[Conserative Morality]

But I'm not thirty years old yet,

Thirty years after they've left office.

Before that, it's all partisan politics. Even with Reagan, you're either a Conservative and love him, or a Liberal and hate him.

[Revolutopia]

Thirty years is my rule of thumb for judging presidents.

While, that might be one of the best approaches I think you can get a hint of a president's legacy by seeing how they and their decisions influenced or affected the president following them.

[Dracoria]

Thirty years is my rule of thumb for judging presidents.

While, that might be one of the best approaches I think you can get a hint of a president's legacy by seeing how they and their decisions influenced or affected the president following them.

Wow. In that case, Bush is either really great or really awful, judging by how much Obama's followed him in economic decisions.

[Kuwat]

Worst:James Buchanan- because he failed to deal with the loomping succession crisis when he was in office, a close second is George W. bush- he lead the nation into billions of dollars of debt and started a useless war in Iraq, and during his second term he did nothing to help the us economy he just sat back and watched it happen and he cheated Al gore out of the election in 2000.

Best- FDR led the nation throughout the great depression and most of world war II and created the new deal, which helped millions of Americans.
2nd best is Lincoln- he refused to let the US break apart even when the war was unpopular during his reelection bid.

[High Vasa]

Regarding James Buchanan, after the south seceding, he was no longer president, he had no authority to fix the union.

Actually, South Carolina seceded from the Union on 20 December, 1860. Buchanan was president until 4 March, 1861, therefore he was president when succession happened. I won't disagree that the final event leading to the several states seceding was the election of Lincoln, but that wasn't the first straw and nor did it actually happen during Lincoln's administration.

[Revolutopia]

While, that might be one of the best approaches I think you can get a hint of a president's legacy by seeing how they and their decisions influenced or affected the president following them.

Wow. In that case, Bush is either really great or really awful, judging by how much Obama's followed him in economic decisions.

Bush's economic policies has had a direct affect of causing the start of economic recession that the Obama administration is now facing, that is the kind of legacy I am talking about. Primarily, I think one should review the political and economic environment that a preceding president left for their successor.

For example, one can rank Buchanan as the terrible as he left an political environment of secession and civil war for his successor Abraham Lincoln. While, other presidents might be ranked higher as they left their successor I generally more stable environment.