Published: Tuesday, July 29 2014 10:10 a.m. MDT
Sure it is...Look at Abraham Lincoln.In his day -- 1/2 of the Country loved him, 1/2 of the Country hated him...to the
point of Civil War, He was even SHOT for it.History is the
ultimate judge of their sucess -- NOT talk radio.
Is it impossible to be a successful president?If you are
incompetent, inexperienced, and your only qualifications are your ability to
campaign and sow division, like our current POTUS it is impossible.Open minded,“sure it is…”You are saying Lincoln
was unsuccessful? By what definition?Maybe you need better
It may be even harder to define just WHAT constitutes a "successful"
First need to define "Succeed".If "success" =
"be popular in the polls"... then the answer is "no". As OMM pointed out, even Abraham Lincoln was not popular with about 50% of the
country at the time. And they didn't even have "talk-radio" back
then!The President will usually be un-popular with a percentage of
the population. I don't care if it's Bush or Obama. It's just
the way it is. Hard-core partisans even hated Ronald Reagan, and he's the
most popular President we have had in my generation.I don't
think you need to be popular to be a successful President. But we better
define what we mean by "successful" before we get too far. Just to make
sure we are all talking about the same thing.=======If
the trend continues... Hillary Clinton won't be a "successful"
President either.I don't know what could change this trend.
NOBODY seems to have been able to do it in my generation (Except Bush for a few
months after 9/11).Maybe we need a 9/11 in each Presidency to bring
"Successful" is in the eyes of the beholder. Calvin Coolidge was
considered by some to be successful - he had enough digits to sign what was
placed before him.
Bill Clinton was largely disliked by the right because of his personal moral
failings.GWB was largely disliked by the left because of the wars he
waged against terrorism.Obama is largely disliked by the right
because of his "winner-take-all", uncompromising attitude. The country
is very divided ideologically with about 50% on each side of many issues. The
party in power should get its way more than the party which lost the last
election. Something like 60/40 is a fair split of the political spoils. But
Obama seems to think that because "elections have consequences" that his
ideology should prevail 100% of the time and the opposition should bow to his
every whim. He has yet to yield to any of the demands from the 50% of the
country that disagrees with his leftist agenda.Hopefully, the next
president (GOP or Dem) will be the president of all of us instead of just their
Success. Getting us into two foreign quagmire wars designed to
enrich the military industrial complex, implement and oversee a massive
expansion of spying on American citizens, citizens in other countries, our
friends and ally governments and, incidentally and sometimes, bad guys. Also,
tank the economy and enrich the bankers...Yep, Obama has some way to
go to be successful in the eyes of the GOP.
No... As long as 50% of voters become convinced (thanks FOX and MSNBC) that a
President who disagrees with them is an enemy (even evil), our representatives
will not compromise with him/her or allow the POTUS a "victory." All
agenda items must be stopped at all costs -- even if voters agree with some --
because potential successors will use party victories to stay in power.
Popularity is only part of the formula for "success" of a President. The
Constitution of the US is an ambitious ideal toward which we continue to strive,
and provides the criteria by which every President (and public official) must be
judged:"to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity".Lincoln was not successful because of his popularity
numbers; he was successful because he did more than most to preserve the Union
while establishing justice (and equality) and securing those blessings of
liberty to a generation of Americans and their posterity. Sure,
Domestic tranquility suffered for a time, but surgery on any patient temporarily
disturbs tranquility in order to save the life of the patient.IMHO,
President Obama has done a good job "promoting the general welfare",
establishing justice, and providing for the common defense in the face of
divisive partisan gamesmanship, even at the expense of some unity and
tranquility. With some immigration reform, he can be a partially
"successful" President despite approval ratings.
@Stormwalker,I don't know if you are aware of this but... Obama
attacked more nations than Bush did. So you're probably going to need to
get off that high-horse.The red-lines and military attacks Obama
authorized weren't as big as Bush's, but he used the US Military as
much as Bush did during his Presidency (in nations other than Iraq and
Afghanistan). IMO Bush was unlucky to be President when all that
9/11 Terrorist stuff happened. It clearly was started and almost ready during
the Clinton Administration. They had already attacked us several times (USS
Coles, WTC Bombing, Attacks on our embassy's in Africa, etc) but they
didn't do their BIGGEST attack until Bush was in office.But
Clinton sent cruise missiles into Baghdad before Bush did. And Kosovo, and
military attacks in Somalia, etc...But the high-horse on the wars...
kinda doesn't work with me. Clinton started wars. Obama got America
into wars. If you take the partisan glasses off... that pretense that only
Bush got us involved in wars... doesn't work in the clear coolaid-free
light of day.
Since WWII...FDR would get an A grade Truman would get a B
grade Eisenhower would get a B grade Kennedy would get an A grade
Nixon would get a C- grade Ford would get a B- grade. Carter
would get a D grade.Reagan would get an A grade. Probably THE best leader
of all. Bush I would get a B- grade. Clinton would get an A- grade.
Bush II would get a B+ grade.Barack Obama would get the ONLY F
grade. The man is a disaster in every way. All of the above men (except Obama)
were leaders to some degree. So YES a president CAN be a success -
not perfect - but a success none the less IF he has the following
attributes...1. Knows HOW to govern and compromise - has
experience.2. Knows HOW to lead - either from war service or being a
governor 3. Puts the country FIRST ahead of his own ambitions even when
unpopular to do so.4. Surrounds himself with smart and competent cabinet
members.5. Has a good understanding of basic capitalistic principles. 6. Is willing to take responsibility and not blame others. 7. Puts the
US constitution above all else
Stormwalker: "Getting us into two foreign quagmire wars designed to enrich
the military industrial complex, implement and oversee a massive expansion of
spying on American citizens, citizens in other countries, our friends and ally
governments and, incidentally and sometimes, bad guys. Also, tank the economy
and enrich the bankers..."I realized by the end of your post
that you meant to direct this at GWB, but as I read through this list I thought
you might be talking about Obama who did all those things too, but then you
would need to add a few items......using the IRS to attack his
political enemies, using the Senate Majority Leader to block votes on most
legislative bills while accusing the opposition as the party of NO, blaming
every scandal on anyone and everyone except the real cause...himself, failing to
enforce laws mandated by his oath of office....
IMO Reagan changed the course of this Nation AND the World more than any
President in my lifetime (He Presided over the biggest negative to positive
turnaround I've ever experienced). But he had more to work with than any
President in my lifetime. I don't know if we could have gotten much lower
and still survived (economically, militarily, foreign affairs, the internal
strife and malaise was felt by every segment of society in America, we were
going down)... But then we turned around just before we nosedived into the
ground... it was quite miraculous.I don't know how much of that
Reagan really deserves credit for, but it was the biggest turn around I've
ever witnessed.And even Reagan is considered to NOT have been a
success... By many.
patriot's report card would be more impressive if ALL the presidents who
served in the period he described had been included.
If you are a welfare recipient, Obama is the most successful president in
history. If you are a taxpayer, he is a total failure!
"Obama emerged with his stirring 2004 Democratic convention speech, evoking
the shared aspirations of red and blue America, and took office embodying
convergence and reconciliation". It is difficult to refer to
Obama's speech and honestly believe he has made an attempt to actually
compromise and work with the GOP. After all, following Obama's first
presidential victory he said "Republicans can come along for the ride, but
they'll have to sit at the back of the bus." I cannot
recall much evidence at all that Obama has worked with Republicans. Actually,
Obama has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats in Congress for not
attempting any type of relationship or communication with that branch of
government. Obama has been described as pompous, arrogant, ideological. Hardly
characteristics that endear one to others.Reagan was a great leader.
As such, he was able win both presidential elections with landslide victories,
drawing from the Democratic party. With the right leader today the
country could be more united. The president can be popular, effective, and
great...if he possesses true leadership characteristics. Obviously few do.
Also obvious is that our current president does not.
Successful president = Keeping us out of depression + keeping us out of war +
allowing people to obtain health careTwo out of three ain't
President 1st term...second term Dwight Eisenhower 69.6...60.6Richard Nixon 55.8...34.4Ronald Reagan 50.3...55.3Bill Clinton
49.6...60.6George W. Bush 62.2..35.5Average for US presidents
All I can say is in my lifetime I have never seen more of a failure that
President Obama. I think one of the reasons for that is because he had no
experience in Governing. He thinks that the main responsibility of a President
is going on Vacations, Golfing, and fundraising. He talks a great talk but does
not walk the walk. To me he is a failure of a President.
Hold onto those party lines with your life people, what will remain in your wake
is a partisan blind mess from lack of compromise and "well at least I'm
not as stupid as those who support the _________ Party". In the name of
what you call "standing firm for principles and values", our country is
struggling and will continue to until voters learn to not defend the people they
voted for just because they voted for them. They are people and hence will fail
but if you refuse to see the failure and hold them accountable for it, well, we
get what we have. Republicans and Democrats are at fault, pretty much equally.
Choke on it and change.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments