Taft definitely is not better than TR. Taft was a TR puppet who then took things too far. Das knows more about Taft and TR, I believe...as I remember having a conversation with him about conservation, Taft, Taft's Sec. of Interior (I forget the dude's name), TR, etc.

Taft definitely is not better than TR. Taft was a TR puppet who then took things too far.

1. TR was pissed that Taft didn't "fully comply" with his policies. This really has to do with the Pinchot controversy, which was totally blown out of proportion.

 

2. How did Taft take anything too far?

 

3. Taft busted more trusts and continued progressive policies.

 

BUT

 

4. Taft didn't handle the media well.

Brian, Clinton lied under oath about that AND whitewater...that's called perjury.

Clintoon was a loser i bet he was getting BJ's while he spoke at events.

im definitely no Clinton fan, but that was just an unintelligent comment.

Sorianofan i think Ur confused with FDR as Hoover. Because Hoover was one of the worst Prez's LOL.

Brian, Clinton lied under oath about that AND whitewater...that's called perjury.

I don't care. Clinton rocked. No matter what anyone says my quality of life was better under Clinton than any of those other guys on the list. I know Reagan, I know the Bush clan and I know Clinton. I can't vote for those other guys because, frankly, I never lived under their terms.

 

And I don't care if he lied about a blowjob. It's not an issue with me. Prove he lied on other issues or that whitewater was as big as it was supposed to be and maybe I'll change my mind. Sorry, I like Clinton.

 

And I'd be getting BJ's while speaking at events, too, if the oppurtunity that presented itself. Can't help it I'm just aman. That's all I'll ever be. Just a man. (the last paragraph was a joke, all the rest I'm fifty percent serious about)

Clintoon was a loser i bet he was getting BJ's while he spoke at events.

what is this, police academy?

 

I don't care. Clinton rocked. No matter what anyone says my quality of life was better under Clinton than any of those other guys on the list. I know Reagan, I know the Bush clan and I know Clinton. I can't vote for those other guys because, frankly, I never lived under their terms.

 

Your life rocked because of Newt Gingrich and his bodies forcing through sound fiscal initiatives. Not failed clinton crap, like national health care.

Sorianofan i think Ur confused with FDR as Hoover. Because Hoover was one of the worst Prez's LOL.

I wrote something long and intelligent with sound historical and economic backing.

 

You wrote dog sh*t.

 

Me 1

You 0

 

LOL LMAO!!!! :lol :hat

Taft as President did little...it is true that for hte most part he was a puppet of TR. Taft only became President because TR made it so essentially.

 

All that Sorianofan talks about was continuation of TR progressive policies...how that makes him better...I have no clue.

 

 

He was a much better Chief Justice.

Sorianofan i think Ur confused with FDR as Hoover. Because Hoover was one of the worst Prez's LOL.

I wrote something long and intelligent with sound historical and economic backing.

 

You wrote dog sh*t.

 

Me 1

You 0

 

LOL LMAO!!!! :lol :hat NOT NICE :thumbdown

Sorianofan i think Ur confused with FDR as Hoover. Because Hoover was one of the worst Prez's LOL.

I wrote something long and intelligent with sound historical and economic backing.

 

You wrote dog sh*t.

 

Me 1

You 0

 

LOL LMAO!!!! :lol :hat NOT NICE :thumbdown I like info, not dogmatic assertions.

Taft as President did little...it is true that for hte most part he was a puppet of TR. Taft only became President because TR made it so essentially.

Most veeps ran as president afterwards. By your logic, TDR was McKinley's puppet, because mckinely had to die for TDR to be prez...that's dumb logic my friend.

 

All that Sorianofan talks about was continuation of TR progressive policies...how that makes him better...I have no clue.

 

TDR started the policies, but the policies grew much more so under Taft. Are we going to say Wilson did nothing because TDR said it first? That's absurd. Taft expanded up TDR's policies, so he was pretty much the same as TDR, without the arrogance and great media relations.

 

You tell me how Taft was ineffective. By not going nuts like Wilson (centrally planned economy, state propaganda machine), there wasn't much more Taft could of done for the time.

tell me how Taft is better than Teddy.

 

 

 

I dont see Taft enacting the park policies that Teddy did.

 

 

Teddy was the first President to make the US a major player in the world stage, demanding respect from other nations all over the world.

 

 

Teddy was really the first progressive in the White House.

 

 

I say that Taft did little....because he basically took the same policies Teddy enacted and let them grow, doing a little here and there with them.

 

 

Taft was ok. He was not as great as Teddy.....but he was far from the worst. I didnt say he was abymsal did i?

tell me how Taft is better than Teddy.

He was politically the same, but was more efficient with the executive branch, busted more trusts, furthered more progressive policies, and was quite so brash domestically (dollar diplomacy over gun boat diplomacy...Teddy's international diplomacy might of helped us, but it is immoral and would help give america international resentment.)

 

I dont see Taft enacting the park policies that Teddy did.

 

No, that he did not do. But the Pinchot controversy was blown way out of proportion, he wasn't exactly george bush II.

 

Teddy was the first President to make the US a major player in the world stage, demanding respect from other nations all over the world.

He introduced "executive agreements" which would be an unconstitutional extension of executive powers, castrating congress's treaty making powers. This is a negative thing. His helping of subversives in panama was immoral, and his gunboat diplomacy was rather arrogant giving America internationally a cowbow image.

 

"demanding respect" and being disrespectful are two entirely seperate things.

 

Teddy was really the first progressive in the White House.

 

So? Being the first at what you do does not make you the best. You deserve credit for it, but it does not mean Teddy some how was better than Taft (who busted more trusts in four years than teddy did in his 2 terms).

 

I say that Taft did little....because he basically took the same policies Teddy enacted and let them grow, doing a little here and there with them.

That's like saying George Bush II did little, because he's pretty much the second coming of ronald reagan. Your statement therefore is not true.

 

Taft didn't do "a little here and there." He expanded upon progressivism.

 

Taft was ok. He was not as great as Teddy.....but he was far from the worst. I didnt say he was abymsal did i?

 

Until I can see otherwise, Taft's ability to accomplish more than Teddy outside of the environmental arena morally made him the better president, NOT the better media image.

Not really, stop trying to act like I'm some evil person with alterior motives.

 

Someone asked me why, I gave an honest answer.? EXCUSE ME!

no, i just thought it was odd that you noted on another thread that you thought a president who was almost universally considered a failure was the best we've ever had, while the one usually considered the best president (FDR) was the worst.

 

no one asked you why, and then you made this thread and repeated the same thing.

 

when ncmarlin finally threw you your bone, i got the impression you typed/pasted something you've been itching to discuss... that's the only reason i even bothered pointing it out. i'm not tryin to be a tool, dude.

No, I wrote it in a fit of love for Hoover. I was so happy with what I wrote, I even put it on my website.

 

no, i just thought it was odd that you noted on another thread that you thought a president who was almost universally considered a failure was the best we've ever had, while the one usually considered the best president (FDR) was the worst.

 

Yeah, I hate the media. How they make one man appear so horrible and another so good is beyond me...literally.

Funny thing is that Taft is not really considered Progressive.....hell he alientated almost all Progressives during his term...

I don't care what the media thought he was, we all know how he conducted himself in office. Strong (relatively) executive, progressive policies...pretty much a moral progressive unlike Wilson and TDR.

 

He "alienated" progressives after the blown out of proportion pinchot controversy. He was embaraased because of political rivalries within his cabinent and he replaced pinchot with a blatantly pro-environment guy.

 

Taft also had to not appear to extreme in order not to scare the conservative wing of the republican party. Remember, the political machines kicked TDR out of Ny and made him veep because they were scared of HIS INFLUENCE! ah, the ironies in history.

Yeah, I hate the media. How they make one man appear so horrible and another so good is beyond me...literally.

 

I don't care what the media thought he was, we all know how he conducted himself in office. Strong (relatively) executive, progressive policies...pretty much a moral progressive unlike Wilson and TDR.

 

He "alienated" progressives after the blown out of proportion pinchot controversy. He was embaraased because of political rivalries within his cabinent and he replaced pinchot with a blatantly pro-environment guy.

 

Taft also had to not appear to extreme in order not to scare the conservative wing of the republican party. Remember, the political machines kicked TDR out of Ny and made him veep because they were scared of HIS INFLUENCE! ah, the ironies in history.

 

Youre not referring to media in the modern sense of it are you? Because in those times presidents had identity to the modern world. There was no media to create impressions of presidential activity and hence no media to make FDR look good while making Hoover look bad. The importance of media in politics would come far down the road. Everything we know about the identity of presidents we know because of what we read, ie mainly secondary sources like historians who tend to formulate our opinion.

 

Im assuming you mean historians for that is the source on all these assertions. What's interesting is that you can implicate historians as having mistakingly asserted something when all youre knowledge is based on these same historians. You act like you were there in those times and you knew how everything actually happend. What media do you base your assertions on that are independent of the media which you claim to be biased?

 

 

My point being it is silly to take this thread beyond the modern media president to a time when presidential scrutiny was a second thought.

Youre not referring to media in the modern sense of it are you? Because in those times presidents had identity to the modern world. There was no media to create impressions of presidential activity and hence no media to make FDR look good while making Hoover look bad. The importance of media in politics would come far down the road. Everything we know about the identity of presidents we know because of what we read, ie mainly secondary sources like historians who tend to formulate our opinion.

 

Im assuming you mean historians for that is the source on all these assertions. What's interesting is that you can implicate historians as having mistakingly asserted something when all youre knowledge is based on these same historians. You act like you were there in those times and you knew how everything actually happend. What media do you base your assertions on that are independent of the media which you claim to be biased?

 

 

My point being it is silly to take this thread beyond the modern media president to a time when presidential scrutiny was a second thought.

 

Thanks for correcting for my incomplete thoguht. It is a combination. The media now says things, the media then conveyed a positivie image for some people and not for others, and yes biased post new deal and post kennedy historians pretty much screw up history in order to make bad presidents look good.

 

TDR was such a personality and so good at dealing with the media then, historians and the media now think he was the next coming of Jesus. TDR did some very good (and some not so good things), but people remember more the the teddy bear/trust buster image, not supporting subversives, less trust busting than taft reality.

 

When it comes to history, the events themselves (assuming we don't lie) cannot be totally biased. How we interpret these events is different. Looking at unemployment, GDP, and other numbers shows us FDR's failure during the depression. The fact that Taft busted double the trusts and pretty much kept the status quo cannot be biased. You can't bias brute statistics. What is biased is when people take into account media image and personality when determining how effective a president was. Furthermore, individual factors comes into play (for example, if you are for the expansion of government and have certain political views) and people will overlook certain things (like FDR's blatan failures).

But you also cant just use only the facts that interest you and take that for the truth while ignoring all the rest.

But you also cant just use only the facts that interest you and take that for the truth while ignoring all the rest.

Yes, I agree.

 

With all facts assessed, I believe that Hoover was the best president because he is almost a carbon copy of my personal ideology, which I am convinced is the single best economic/political ideology in existence (otherwise I wouldn't believe it).

 

Furthermore, I do not see the difference between TDR and taft when it comes to progressivism aside from the environment and immoral international issues.

 

Lastly, I personally do no think having " a great image" makes you one of the "best presidents", terrible image aside, some great things have been accomplished by people with bad ones (Taft and Nixon). I find image irrelevant.

 

So going by the historical record of a politicians actual actions, I guage their performance.

 

Nonetheless, I see no convincing arguments put forward against Taft or Hoover.

Correct me if Im wrong but you seem to imply that historians and media perpective on certain president's and the events that should interpret them has been done incorrectly and the primary reason for this is political bias. But isn't it the same case with your views? I mean you admit that since Hoover is a carbon copy of your political/economic views, you feel he is the best president. So you'll value those political actions and events which fit well with your political perpective and devalue those which don't. Perhaps that is why you consider Hoover so good and FDR so bad and take the economic data which comports with that. The bias is with you too.

 

 

I dont think you give historians enough credit and dismiss them way too easily as just falling for the image hype(though you've convinced yourself that your views are the objective truth). Economic numbers dont tell the whole story. The depression was massive and had numerous variables that affected it. Frankly back then and today, the truth is presidents can do very little to fix or fail an economy. International principles and domestic business affects this more than some policies. So to measure a president based on rates without looking beyond those numbers is like measuring a pitcher by wins without looking at things like run support and ballpark, except much more exagerrated.

 

The reason Hoover is not liked and FDR is for me falls into a different pattern. Since presidents can do little to affect the economy, it is what they do for the people that helps. Hoover was dull, cold and distant. It was as if he didnt care and just implemented policies to help his core loyalty. One of the biggest examples of his cold heart towards the suffering in America is the case of WW1 veterans(bonus army). FDR knew he could only do so much but that he had to bring the distant executive to the people. He had to talk to them and tell them that they were not alone and the nation was together. The fireside chats were brilliant. You cant judge presidents outside of statistics.

 

There is reason historians are in general consensus and it isnt because of bias. Youre certainly in the far minority on this.

I have to put a stop to myself, I have too much work to do, but I'll write back to this.

 

I have a 7 hour shift of friday, so you'll be hearing a lot from me.

 

anyway, to your post.

 

Correct me if Im wrong but you seem to imply that historians and media perpective on certain president's and the events that should interpret them has been done incorrectly and the primary reason for this is political bias. But isn't it the same case with your views? I mean you admit that since Hoover is a carbon copy of your political/economic views, you feel he is the best president. So you'll value those political actions and events which fit well with your political perpective and devalue those which don't. Perhaps that is why you consider Hoover so good and FDR so bad and take the economic data which comports with that. The bias is with you too.

Yes and no. Yes, my morals dictate that Hoover is the best president and that FDR was terrible. However, there are things outside of my morals at the same time that act as very good arguments against FDR, none that anyone have refuted. His unconstitutionality, his economically unsound programs, and the precedents he set are all facts, not opinion. Most historians choose to believe that the new deal didn't hurt the economy and it helped all these people. Sure it helped people, but you would of helped MORE (economic FACT) if you never had a new deal, thus the new deal hurt more people than it helped. None of this is strictly my opinion, it is just understanding economics and how the recovery was going statistically since 1929.

 

Furthermore, there is no justifying FDR's court packing scheme, attempt to purge members of congress, and his 4 terms of office. My honest opinion from analyzing the previous is that he was the makings of a dictator. That's obviously not good. However, looking at the evidence, it is hard to see it an other way.

 

I dont think you give historians enough credit and dismiss them way too easily as just falling for the image hype(though you've convinced yourself that your views are the objective truth).

 

These people will be my future collegues (hopefully), but I don't give them credit because historians are very susceptible to image. How many years have passed with us still telling untrue fanciful tales on washington and lincoln? Historians fall in love with the image, heroism, and ect. Not all, but certainly some/a great deal. A great example of this is how know one knows who James Polk is and he was a far stronger executive than Andrew Jackson? Why? He didn't have a flashy image or a funny character...he was just a politician. I blame schoolf of historians for this.

 

Economic numbers dont tell the whole story.

They tell the stories of economics...and knowing simple economics allows one to realize how inefficient and bad economically FDR's programs were.

 

The depression was massive and had numerous variables that affected it.

 

The chief variable was the economy, though a long term agricultural recession did not help. However, building a strong economy is what's most important for recovery.

 

Frankly back then and today, the truth is presidents can do very little to fix or fail an economy. International principles and domestic business affects this more than some policies. So to measure a president based on rates without looking beyond those numbers is like measuring a pitcher by wins without looking at things like run support and ballpark, except much more exagerrated.

FDR did in fact have a mandate from the people and he coerced total alleigance from his party. He is direcrtly responsible for the good and BAD effects of all his programs.

 

Generally, it is rather simple to realize that if he was the head of these efforts and that very obviously certain taxes made the economy go down and the economy itself was bad for too long a period, nothing else shares the blame at a point besides FDR's programs. Hoover's agenda was almost (now that we can look back) the perfect way to deal with an economic crisis: make economic stability, do not increase government spending, and wait it out. At this point, taxes were not yet the problem, so the laffer curve (cutting taxes for more government revenue) would not be of issue.

 

The reason Hoover is not liked and FDR is for me falls into a different pattern. Since presidents can do little to affect the economy, it is what they do for the people that helps.

 

Untrue, you can do nothing for the economy besides offer political stability and help make banks more viable. Hoover did this. Furthermore, you can blatantly hurt the economy, like FDR's tax hikes in the late 30s. No historian disagrees with the fact that increased taxes caused a second great depression that didn't end until WW2. So this is not up for debate. FDR was undoubtingly FAR WORSE for the American economy. Because of this, it is my intelligent opinion he was worse for the people economically...without getting into moral issues.

 

Hoover was dull, cold and distant. It was as if he didnt care and just implemented policies to help his core loyalty. One of the biggest examples of his cold heart towards the suffering in America is the case of WW1 veterans(bonus army). FDR knew he could only do so much but that he had to bring the distant executive to the people. He had to talk to them and tell them that they were not alone and the nation was together. The fireside chats were brilliant. You cant judge presidents outside of statistics.

You just proved my point about historians. You just talked TOTALLY about image. Image image image. A great president makes the right decisions, image only helps them make those decisions...image does not make you great (JFK was terrible for instance.) You are saying "Well FDR sucked economically, he ridded us of rights, acted unconstitutionally, but hey, he had an awesome image."

 

Image does not make a great president...it only makes perceived greatness, not true greatness.

 

There is reason historians are in general consensus and it isnt because of bias. Youre certainly in the far minority on this.

As I said previously, they fell into the image trap. For years, no one questioned "how great" jfk was. HE SUCKED DONKEY BALLS. He didn't do a damn thing. Image means nothing.

 

Fact: Hoover's agenda was far more beneficial to the economy tha FDR's

Fact: FDR did indeed hurt the economy and worsened the depression

Fact: FDR did indeed act unconstitutionally in many instances and increased the government's role in an individual's life

 

These are not debatable. Whether or not you think what FDR did was justified is. However, I find it very difficult to intelligently know all of the previous and still think he was a good president.

 

It is a shame many historians fall for the slick image.