A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, a new poll says.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, 33 percent of voters think the current president is the worst since 1945.
Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, came in at second-worst with 28 percent, and Richard Nixon was in third place with 13 percent of the vote. After Jimmy Carter, who 8 percent of voters said was the worst president in the time period, no other president received more than 3 percent.
Thirty-five percent of voters said Ronald Reagan was the best president since World War II, receiving nearly twice as many votes as any other former president. Bill Clinton came in second place at 18 percent, while John F. Kennedy came in third with 15 percent of the vote and Obama came in fourth with 8 percent saying he was the best.
All other remaining presidents received 5 percent or less. Five percent of voters said Dwight D. Eisenhower was the best president since 1945, while 4 percent said Harry Truman. Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush each received 3 percent. George W. Bush came in at 1 percent.
Forty-five percent of voters said the U.S. would be better off with Mitt Romney serving in the White House, compared to 38 percent who said the country would be in worse shape.
More at Politico
Obama is easily the worst president since WWII. Likely the worst in US history with the possible exception of James Buchanan, a Northern dough-face who sat back and allowed the storm clouds of civil war to gather. Come to think of it Obama is a dough-face in his own way with…leading from behind. The middle east is in chaos…the economy still in recession regardless of all the MSM happy talk…and we have multi-scandals…the worst being the Nixonian use of the IRS to suppress the conservative vote in ’12.
Looking back at presidents since WWII here (for what it is worth) is my list of best to worst:
1. Eisenhower
2. Truman
3. Reagan
4. Kennedy
5. Bush I
6. Bush II
7. Ford
8. Nixon
9. Clinton
10. Johnson
11. Obama
@VoteOutIncumbents: That’s a good list. Carter? It’ll be interesting to see how history plays out. Bush II is in a similar situation as Truman was. Both were regarded as stupid by the left. Both had two recessions, one minor and one major although they were reversed in order as far timelines go. Both had an unpopular war under their belts. Both left with a dismal approval rating. Yet, history has come around to judging Truman quite well because of the outcome of the Cold War. His strategy of containment led to the downfall of Communism (along with its inherent nature to fail). Bush was in a similar situation with regards to GWOT. What will hurt him the most is the fact that unlike Truman, he wasn’t followed by an Eisenhower but by an Obama. Whereas Ike finished the Korean War with a victory, Obama is pulling out of Afghanistan regardless if victory is achieved or not. Whereas Ike consolidated the victory in Korea by keeping a presence there that preserved the victory for over 60 years, Obama failed to preserve the victory in Iraq. Whereas Ike built upon Truman’s policy of containment coming up with the concept of mass retaliation forcing the Soviets to wreck their already fragile economy even more by trying to match it, Obama declared GWOT over despite the ever growing gains made by AQ and its affiliates. Whereas Ike took Truman’s deficits and turned them into our last real surpluses (1956, 1957), Obama tripled the size of Bush’s deficits. FYI, contrary to leftist urban myth, the debt increased every year under Clinton meaning there was no true surplus.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
How about since… there have been Presidents?
Perhaps instead of being judged against the accomplishments, Obama should be judged against what he promised to do.
@another vet
I agree with your analysis. I think given time, and the long lens of history, George W. Bush will be seen in a much better light like Truman. Anyone who suggests he’s worst than Carter and Obama is seeing history through rose-colored glasses. For now, I would rate GWB slightly ahead or even with JFK. JFK, largely continuing Ike’s policies, was sort of a mixed bag in laying out his own policy prerogatives.
Not only is he (obama) the worst but he is absolutely the most divisive. He actions have caused race relations to regress to the 50s. Instead of uniting he divides, he chooses sides, he incites. He has chosen to throw away the greatest opportunity given to him, the first black president to perpetuate victimhood instead of offering solutions and hope, not hype.
In addition to being the worst ever U.S. President, this narcissist is working feverishly towards being the last U.S. President.
And the DemRino party of one will be right there to hug his rump when he declares himself dictator.
@Buffalobob, #5:
That’s not what the polls have said for most of his time in office. As a matter of fact, that’s not what the polls say even now. Obama presently has an average approval rating of 41.3 percent, despite the fact that elected republicans have made the destruction of his reputation and presidency their single, full-time occupation. The job approval rating of Congress presently stands at an appalling 13 percent, which may well suggest something about what Americans think of Congressional priorities.
Obama’s lowest approval rating thus far has been 39 percent. His immediate predecessor bottomed out at 19 percent.
@Greg: Poor, poor old Obama. Everyone picks on little old him.
Obama is still suffering defeat and embarrassment from his very first and signature achievement… Obamacare… which he had passed, exactly like he wanted it, while he had the full majority of the House and Senate. All Democrat, all the time. Of course, the failure and destruction of Obamacare is now famous and has a great deal to do with his failure and bad reputation (I will allow someone else the pleasure of emphasizing that famous lie for you).
Likewise, since he shuts out all but those that agree with him, his economic record is his; just his. As is his foreign policy record. He takes counsel from no one but those who think as he does… and it really shows.
Yeah, Congress is regarded just as badly (lest you forget, half of that is Democrat, so I wouldn’t stand on that as proof of Obama’s superiority) and Bush had the full force of the media constantly pounding on him and his reputation. So, since Obama still has most of the media lobbing him soft balls and cheering him on, his dismal performance is honest and all his.
He simply stinks as President.
@Bill, #8:
Obamacare is still in effect. Please me know when republicans have at last succeeded in totally destroying it, then we can discuss what they plan to do about the millions of Americans who will again suddenly be uninsured, the reappearance of lifetime coverage maximums, unexpected policy cancellations for a variety of technicalities, and denial of coverage in connection with preexisting conditions, etc.
These reappearing problems will no doubt all be addressed compassionately by the same people who attempted to cut unemployment extensions to families during the height of the recession, who have repeatedly tried to cut food stamp grants to the working poor, who continue to oppose all minimum wage laws, who have worked to deny funding to women’s health and family planning clinics, who have pushed for cuts to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, who tried to cut Women Infants and Children nutritional program funding, etc etc. Or, more likely, they’ll be ignored exactly as they were for all the years when republicans held the presidency and had control of both houses of Congress.
Shall we put them back in the driver’s seat? You probably can count on them for more tax cuts for the wealthiest and for more indirect taxpayer subsidies of private sector health care provider and insurance company profits, while they continue to rant about rising public debt and deficits. With luck, you might even get another $2 trillion war somewhere.
The people who judge Obama incompetent and never will be quiet about that opinion regardless of world events would have put an obvious total nincompoop like Sarah Palin only a heartbeat away from holding the most powerful office on the planet. I don’t point that out often because it seems impolite, but it’s certainly something to keep in mind.
@Greg:
I dare you to.compare Palin’s record as an executive with Obama’s.
You blather on about the supposed need for government to fund all sorts of things for citizens, so where do you draw the line? Is there anything you believe that falls under the category of personal responsibilty? Or do you believe that the government should simply take on the role of being parent to every citizen? Should we turn over 100% of all income to the federal government so it can divy out food, clothing, housing and medical care? Where do you honestly think the line, if any, should be drawn?
The federal debt is at $17 trillion and climbing. We cannot continue with this Sugar Daddy political mentality for much longer. Upon what basis, other than marxism, do you base the idea that it is government’s duty to pay for citizen living expenses? Who gets to decide how money taken from those who produce is divided up amongst those who do not? How long do you really think a society that spends hundreds of billions to trillions more than it makes each year can survive before it collapses when tbere is no more money left to take from those who work? What effect will running out of “benefits” have on those who have become dependent on handouts?
@Greg:
Remind me again, Greggie, what was the clause in the United States Constitution that addressed compassion?
And all those babies that you claim would be harmed by the cutting of those programs, wasn’t Roe v. Wade supposed to take care of that? Remember how the left cried that women who could not afford to raise a child would no longer have to give birth to that child?
Or has your convenient memory wiped those claims out?
@Pete:
You seem to not realize that Greggie doesn’t support our Constitution. He is a true believer of the Communist Manifesto and proves that with almost every post.
@Greg:
Obama is the worst Emperor since Caligula.
Where in our Constitution does it empower government to deprive women of sovereign control over the reproduction function of their own bodies?
Palin opposes a woman’s fundamental right to chose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest.
Regarding the poor and the disadvantaged, the New Testament has much to say about our responsibilities toward them. Jesus seems to have considered that a high priority matter.
Basically, I’m not so sure republican policy consistently follows Constitutional principles any more than it does those of genuine Christianity. They do frequently claim the high ground, however, often in a rather condescending and self-righteous manner.
@Greg:
The “sovereign control” begins before conception, Greggie, not after, a fact you seem to want to deny.
Strawman. Palin is not the issue here. She has no vote in the Congress to make any laws. She is just someone you want to pick on while you ignore the women of the Democrat Party who are actually brain dead like Nancy Pelosi, who does have a vote to create laws we must all abide by.
@retire05, #15:
I’m afraid I’m not understanding what thought that sentence is intended to express. I’m guessing it has something to do with your apparent belief that unwanted pregnancies are God’s punishment meted out to women who behave in a manner other than you think proper, and that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is essentially an evasion of just consequences.
There’s nothing “strawman” about it. Palin ran for high public office claiming to be an advocate of individual freedoms, but wants to deprive other women of the freedom to make decisions regarding their own bodies, based on her religious views. She would use the power of the government to force conformity with her own thinking. Republicans are presently doing that wherever they can get away with it, by whatever means they can.
Many republicans want for force women to continue unwanted pregnancies and will work to that end, but they cry foul if anyone suggests they might then have an obligation to pay additional taxes to help provide for children when the parents’ circumstances aren’t allowing that to be accomplished on their own. Somebody ought to tie a knot in a twisted up Don’t Tread on Me flag and smack them in the faces with it. They’re advocating the very sort of intrusive government that they claim to hate, with the intrusion being into one of the most private areas of life imaginable.
How have any women had their control over reproduction deprived?
ALL sex is legal.
All birth control is legal.
The gov’t doesn’t make either MANDATORY.
The gov’t doesn’t pay women to have sex.
The gov’t does pay partially for many women’s birth control. (That’s from dollars confiscated from other Americans.)
For $3.77/month a women can be as sexually active as she pleases w/o getting pregnant.
She certainly might get an STD, however, unless she is monogamous.
19.7 million new STIs every year in the U.S.
One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD/STI by age 25.
One in five Americans (50 million adults) have genital herpes.
If a guy wants some gal and is too cheap or too poor to pay the $3.77 what a loser!
If a gal is WORKING yet has priorities so far off that she can’t buy out $3.77/month for birth control, what a loser, too.
The gov’t shouldn’t make TAKING birth control mandatory, should it?
Well, maybe the gov’t should make condom-wearing mandatory.
What do you think, Greg?
@Greg:
Of course you don’t, Greggie. It is quite obvious that you don’t have the ability to understand anything that doesn’t conform with your programming.
But let me explain it to you; pregnancy occurs when two people, of the opposite sex, engage in unprotected sexual activities. But before that pregnancy happens, those two people, who both had sovereign control over their bodies, decided, willingly, to engage in unprotected sex. They were not forced, they were not coerced, they were not required by anyone else, to do so. They both had the “choice” you so love to talk about to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They did not.
Most certainly is a strawman. Even if the McCain/Palin ticket had won the election, she would be Vice President, and as such, would have had absolutely no power to enact laws over anyone. The power of VP, as exhibited by Bumbling Biden, is little.
Pure hyperbole. But again, we were promised, by a Democrat President no less, that abortions would be rare and safe. I doubt your selective memory registers that. But it is not rare, nor in many cases, is it safe. And the Democrats who push abortion are the greatest gift that racist Margaret Sanger could only dream of.
@Greg: why do i have to provide abortions for someone who has sovereign control of their bodies….what exactly does sovereign mean gregory the sheltered?
@retire05, #18:
Since you’ve brought it up, I might make a similar observation concerning you.
Two people aren’t exercising sovereign control when pregnancy results from rape or incest, but quite a few republicans—Sarah Palin, for one—have clearly stated that they believe a woman should have no right to chose in spite of that.
But even when that’s not the case, what of it? You’re taking the position that a woman’s sovereignty ends the moment conception takes place. Why should it? It’s still her body. She hasn’t automatically relinquished sovereign authority and control to the Church or the State, simply because made a decision that they don’t approve of, and now, for whatever reason, is dealing with consequences that she doesn’t want. Where do they get any right to claim such authority? On what basis?
Spare me the automatic response that at the moment of conception a third party is involved. That’s simply stating a religious premise that isn’t even shared by all who are religious, let alone those who are not.
@Greg: Greggie, prove yourself or shut your mouth. R U proud of being in the minority when supporting 0-blama??
@Greg: Greggie, what % of abortions performed in the US are for Rape or Incest vs total abortions?? Prove yourself so we can laugh!!
@Greg:
Exactly. So, what is the government doing enacting Obamacare? And, Obamacare is NOT in effect because Obama is too cowardly to enact the whole thing. It would cost him votes when all of his lies hit voters in teh face all at once.
@another vet: You’re right…I forgot Carter. Probably a Freudian slip…ashamed to say I voted for him in ’76 but not ’80. I would put him next to Obama next to last place.
@Greg:
And as in 100% of instances, you would be wrong.
When, according to the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, happens in only less than 1% of all pregnancy cases.
More Sarah Palin bloviating. Never mind that in the case of rape, most women received D & Cs to protect against pregnancy. But then, PP is a supporter of statutory rape since they never report them and are more than happy to gain the income from such cases by providing abortions.
A woman conceded control over her own body when she allowed herself to be impregnated by a man. She, and the man, then have a responsibility to care for the human being they have created. Of course, you being a Socialist, thinks that no one should be responsible for their own actions. Guess you think that the government should be responsible for your hang over when you drink too much. Poor Sandra Fluke, she can traipse all over Europe with her very wealthy boyfriend, but it seems neither one of them can afford birth control so she wants someone else to pay for it.
But I am not surprised that you support abortion. Many men do. It is a win/win situation for you. You get to have all the fun and none of the responsibility by claiming that the decision to kill a baby rests solely with the woman. That absolves you from the responsibility of paying when you play. What surprises me is how cheaply women seem to hold their bodies when they allow men like you to use them. That is the real war on women.
@David: The way the media reports plays a role in the way people poll. Both GWOT and the housing market crash had their roots planted on Clinton’s watch and Bush was given sole blame. The ’90’s were a mirage.
As for Obama, his policies still haven’t come full circle yet. The full negative impact of Obamacare still hasn’t worked its way through the economy. When millions have to shell out a few thousand more for health insurance, it’s bound to negatively impact the rest of the economy. Also, given the “recovery” started 5 years ago and the economic cycles we go through, we’ll be due for another recession as well. His foreign policy debacles (and they seem to be mounting) still haven’t come home to roost yet nor has allowing AQ and its affiliates to greatly expand their operational environment. What is very telling is how low he ranks despite the MSM efforts to prop him up. Can you imagine if he was given the same scrutiny as Bush or any other Republican?
@VoteOutIncumbents: Your rankings are pretty close to mine. I would place Carter above Johnson though because the long term negative impacts of his administration weren’t as bad as Johnson’s. Johnson gave us the welfare state in order to lock in votes for the Party. We are paying heavily for that today with both the costs and the culture of dependency it ushered in. He also got us into VN with no plan or gumption to win and we still have the VN defeatist complex today. For what it’s worth, my rankings:
1. Reagan*
2. Truman*
3. Eisenhower*
4. Kennedy
5. Bush II**
6. Bush I
7. Ford
8. Nixon***
9. Clinton
10. Carter
11. Johnson
12. Obama
* The top 3 can be rearranged in any order.
** Take away the amount added to the debt on his watch and he moves ahead of Kennedy.
*** Take away Watergate and the abuses of power, and Nixon would move up a couple of notches. He was actually quite successful.
@another vet,
Fun fact; factoring all of the money spent on the Democrat vote-buying scheme known as the War on Poverty, and you magically have the same number as the national debt, once you figure-in interest. That means, that Reagan and Bush did not get us in debt by financing the “Military-Industrial Complex.” That $17 Trillion was stolen by the Democrats to pay people for keeping them in office.
@ThunderGod:
No doubt the reason they have not been the permanent minority party in this country. But hey, they’ll tell us just how great Obamanomics is because the economy added 288,000 jobs last month and dropped the unemployment rate to 6.1%. Here is the breakdown of the job situation straight from the BLS. Notice how the economy LOST 523,000 full time jobs and gained 799,000 part time jobs. Any bets those numbers won’t be talked about by the WH or MSM? The last two entries in each are May/June.
Full-time workers
1
117,400 119,179 119,472 116,087 117,819
118,003 118,415 118,727 118,204
Part-time workers
2
27,442 27,219 27,631 28,008 27,330 27,695
27,297 27,219 28,018
Nobody ever acquired and retained political office by toadying to private sector concentrations of wealth and power, of course. Nor did repeatedly cutting taxes to win votes when deficits were already rising out of control ever add a dime to the public debt.
And then there are the astronomical and unending costs of never being able to resist a good war. The last $2 trillion-and-counting misadventure in Iraq, for example.
The point being that our $17 trillion national debt isn’t simply a product of democratic social programs. Anybody with a brain surely knows this.
@Greg: Except that we got security and the death of thousands of terrorists for the money spent on the wars. You know what we got for the $17 trillion spent on the War on Poverty? MORE poverty! There are more people living in poverty now, both as a number of people and as a percentage of the population, than there were in 1965 when the War on Poverty was begun.
Great liberal success. Oh, and liberals have squandered and even reversed all the gains accomplished during the war on terror as well. You guys got it going on!
@another vet: On second thought I think you are right about Johnson…I’d put Carter just ahead of him. Not only did he create the Great Society, which has been a disaster on so many levels I’d need a book length response to list them, but as the years go by and I read more, I have become convinced that LBJ was heavily involved in the JFK assassination. Some very persuasive books have looked into Johnson’s history and have found him heavily implicated in several Texas murders. I think he was truly evil.
@VoteOutIncumbents: He gets credit for the Civil Rights Act which probably would have passed had Kennedy lived. He also disliked blacks. It was obvious the reason he pushed the Great Society was to secure votes for the Party. Now Obama is attempting to do the same with Hispanics which will most likely end up destroying their hard work ethic and family unit just like LBJ did with the blacks. But it’s the votes and subsequent power that count.
Destroying the family is the plan.
It’s not a ”bug,” its a ”feature.”
From Jackie Calmes, New York Times reporter, “To Hold Senate, Democrats Rely on Single Women.”
@Nanny G: They seem to be taking the country apart from multiple angles don’t they? Zerohedge had another good article on that yesterday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/cloward-piven-strategy-being-used-destroy-america
@Greg:
Where in our Constitution does it empower government to deprive women of sovereign control over the reproduction function of their own bodies?
This is an idiotically vacuous bit of dishonest leftist propaganda. Your framing of the argument is pathetically disingenuous, which you either understand and demonstrates you are a despicable liar, or you do not understand meaning you are cognitively deficient. Where is there ANY ruling from SCOTUS or any line in the US Constitution, or US law, that “deprives a woman of sovereign control” of their reproductive functions? What you are either lying about or too stupid to understand is the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby merely states that under the RFRA people cannot be forced against their religious beliefs to PAY FOR an employee’s abortificient birth control methods. In NO WAY does the ruling prohibit the employee from using these methods – the ruling simply and correctly defines that the employee cannot force the employer to violate their religious beliefs through a governmental mandate to pay for abortificient birth control. For you to continue to write your propaganda on this despite the many times you have been debunked shows again your contemptible dishonesty, or your abject stupidity.
Palin opposes a woman’s fundamental right to chose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest.
Palin is quoted in multiple places on her unabashedly pro-life position:
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Palin/Abortion.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion
For someone on another thread who posts that he sees no criminality in the photos of teenaged illegal aliens coming across the border – you certainly don’t seem interested in giving such a benefit of the doubt to infants in the womb who came into existence even due to rape or incest. Furthermore – Palin has stated repeatedly Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that individual states should be able to determine if they want to allow abortion. She has also stated that even if her daughter were raped, she would encourage her to choose life. I realize having someone state such a clear, principled position is completely anathema to a leftist given the rhetorical twisting and deceit that is fundamental in the expression of leftist philosophy.
Regarding the poor and the disadvantaged, the New Testament has much to say about our responsibilities toward them. Jesus seems to have considered that a high priority matter.
Ah yes…the old leftist canard equating Christ’s call to perform personal acts of charity, with the concept of collectivist governmental theft as the only acceptable means of caring for the poor. Christ also warned “Even Satan can quote Scripture” – and certainly modern leftists are following Lucifer’s example in that practice.
Basically, I’m not so sure republican policy consistently follows Constitutional principles any more than it does those of genuine Christianity. They do frequently claim the high ground, however, often in a rather condescending and self-righteous manner.
Classic leftist act of transference, given your leftist kneejerk attacks against actual Christianity and the standard leftist haughtiness against anyone pointing out the utter failure of progressive ideology to accomplish anything other than the equal spreading of misery to everyone not belonging to the self-appointed leftist elite. Going back to your Alinsky roots, are you? Those of us here would at least give you partial credit in your comment on republican policy not consistently following Constitutional principles, though to get full credit you would need to properly refer to RINOs rather than actual conservatives.
obama’s failure…unlike rats with common sense, progs will go down with the sinking ship that is obama.
@Pete:
“Ah yes…the old leftist canard equating Christ’s call to perform personal acts of charity, with the concept of collectivist governmental theft as the only acceptable means of caring for the poor. Christ also warned “Even Satan can quote Scripture” – and certainly modern leftists are following Lucifer’s example in that practice.”
The right twists both the teachings of Christ and the words of the Constitution to suit their needs. If hypocrisy is a sin that just might be strike three.